Travis County Commissioners Court
February 7, 2006
Item 3
Number 3, there is a request from Commissioner Davis.
>> gentlemen yes, judge. I’d like to move that we postpone this particular item until further notice. There are some outstanding issues in doing the process as far as acquisition of our tceq permits, also an agreement with txdot. There's a lot of loose ends I think that are in this, so I would like to move that we postpone this particular item until further notice?
>> second.
>> judge? I’d like to make a substitute mowing. It time to deal with this, either up or down. It's fair for the residents that come down here week after week to know what they've got to deal with. We know the positions on the table. I have spoken with the applicant. The applicant, you know, wants and deserves that vote as well. If we're not going to pass it, then let's don't pass it. That's what needs to happen. The people need to know that. I think the unfortunate thing that this is going to do is that because we cannot arbitrarily not pass this and not have the applicant have the ability to go to the courthouse -- and I have discuss it had with christie and the other side, and I think it's sad because it will take it out of our hands. I mean, it will -- a writ of han day must -- man day must sends it to the courthouse. But y'all, I’m exhaust odd this thing. I don't know where toss. If somebody thinks that this court is not trying to be honest brokers with doing what we know that we have in front of us, then I don't know what we can -- I don't know what we can tell you to convince you otherwise. We may be just at an impasse, but I don't think there's new information. I think that -- and you like to give everybody the right -- I know that there are some new people here that we haven't heard from other than some e-mails. But folks, it's time to move forward with this thing. If you can't vote for it, you just can't vote for it. But if you've got an applicant that says, hey, I can stand it. Tell me you're not going to do it so I know what I’ve got to do. Now, unless somebody can tell me right now that that's not what you want to do, then I guess we can continue this process from now to the coming because that's how we do things in Austin, in Travis County. I don't think that that's fair to anybody in this courtroom today or fair to anybody in Travis County. I mean, my motion would be to not delay it, but to have a vote on it up or down today. And that would be my substitute motion.
>> I’ll second that for purposes of discussion. Gerald, if we do decide to do an up/down vote on it, I’ll say it right now, I would vote against it at this time. It is not arbitrary or capricious, it is bias baised on clear understanding on my part that I don't believe it would be the last set of revisions that would come forward either on phase one or phase two because this is too early in the process of getting the required documents finalized, documents out of the lower colorado river authority related to the water and sewer service, the water service, and with tceq related to their wastewater operations. I think it's going to require some more revisions. And this is a piecemeal project that they ought to either stied to move further down the line and get that stuff and come back to us with whatever are the final revisions. I’ve also felt that there is too much -- if they wanted to carve out just the things we've talked about under phase one, that we seem to have some agreement from the neighborhoods that had to do with reducing the impervious cover on that roadway. It would be almost a mile less of impervious cover and a rerouting of that road would also be more environmentally friendly because it's less impervious cover. It would have a better intersection at highway 71 and we could save a grove of trees. But it linked to so many other things. It especially linked to things in section two, which are even further along than phase one. So if we want to postpone this for another day or indefinitely, I’m there. If we want to have an up/down vote, I’m there too. But I am not supporting it and it will not be based on arbitrary or capricious reasons, it will also be based on my assessment of the highway issues on highway 71 that I think are still not locked down and not completed as of today.
>> judge, I think I’m there as well that I think it's -- a lot of the things here are premature. There's some basic things that need to be taken care of, but the other reason that I second Commissioner Davis' motion is that I think if he needs additional information to make a decision, then, you know, we always do that out of courtesy for other members of the court. It has nothing to do with brokering, it has to do with courtesy. And so that's why I second.
>> Commissioner, I don't have a problem with courtesy. I think all of us are courteous. This did not just come up in the last two weeks, and I think all of us know that. I mean, I’m just as sympathetic when people come down here and whatever side you're on, but government needs to work better than this. And I think one way you get government to work is you make a decision and then there's somebody else that that's how the system works unfortunately. With the court system, having to go there. But I don't think -- I suppose maybe what needs to happen is that Commissioner Davis needs to meet with the applicant and say, how much time? Because I’m respectful of somebody that says I need some time, but I think what the issue here is is that time leads to time and time and time, and you get to point of ridiculousness, and that's where we are at this stage. Commissioner, I’m respectful of you wanting some time, but maybe --
>> I think it's just not me needing the time. I think it's the community needing the time. I think it's the developer needing the time. I think it's a lot of loose ends as we've gone through this process. I have posed a lot of questions to not only the developer, I’ve also posed questions to the community. I’ve also tried to structure the questions that I’ve asked to come up with a better solution than what put on this table when I first saw this thing. If we want to go back to the beginning of this, I can go back to that. We left the back door open. We left a door open in this process, I feel, in my opinion, by doing certain things. The court -- I’m a member of this court and when the court votes and it's the Commissioners court that is there, but I still feel that there are some things that we maybe could have closed the back door on. I still think we should have done some things back in March of '05 as far as dealing with the interim rules of adoption. I really believe that. I think we should have done those things, but we didn't. But in June of that same year, we approved a preliminary plan. What I do not want to see -- and I’ve told the developer this and I’ve told the community this. I do not want to see a bad product get out there where it is not as environmentally sensitive as it is the the questions that I’ve heard from the community and the questions I’ve heard here were many fold, so I tried to get an answer to where I could move forward. Number one, to see if we were in the boundaries of the law as far as what we're doing here, but also to look at the maximum position of getting as many things, the environment ali sensitive things that may not have been a part of the original preliminary plan. So as a result of that, we have tried to piecemeal, and that's a good term I think to use, piecemeal to bring about a change for everyone to ensure that there is an opportunity for a change. An example of what we looked at, to give you an example of that, I asked about the 40 acres. Do you remember me talking about that 40 acres where the permanent wastewater treatment plant is to be located. At the end of that we heard a lot of concern about the community, but the thing is the open space on that and also the park being located there and also the permanent wastewater facility being there and then coming up on -- as far as restrictive covenants to ensure that that happens even if it's needed over to the m.u.d. Or the hoa of this subdivision. That's one example of trying to mitigate, trying to come up with a solution, trying to ensure that we do not, and I’ve said it, do not want a lick creek type situation, another poster child. What can we do to enhance and bring these environmental concerns to fruition. And along with that, but also look at the development and look at the best mitigation practices for the development. I’ve heard that in testimony that in another example, the density of it, the number of homes being built there is too many, so I think as another result we looked at another houses being reduced. Things that still have not been really definitely to my opinion to its extreme, to the end by tceq, which I think needs to do that. It appears that they kind of backed off and left it up for folks who do pump and haul, leave it up to the person who is actually doing it, the person who has to oversee that type of operation. So that's not something that the landowner is concerned. So there needs to be specific clarity as we go through this process, specific where I would be comfortable. As far as my comfort level, that would have to be through a commit process. So I think no one in here disagrees with the public safety issue of 71. 71 is going to end upcoming in with those left turn lanes coming in on a collector into the subdivision. I didn't hear no one oppose that. But the agreement itself, there's nothing here to suggest that those things are going to happen accordingly to say that's going to actually happen. So that txdot agreement still hadn't come in place. And what I’m trying to suggest is that I do not want to see it go back to the other situation if possible, but again -- and I asked the developer, we're sitting there talking. One of the main concerns, and I asked the county attorney, and right here, what does the developer have the right to go back to the original plan, does he have the right to do that if this is turned down or voted down? He does. He can still go and revisit -- doesn't have to go with the revised plan. What I’m trying to do and what I’ve attempted to do here is number one as I’ve stated look at the law, and ensure that we are staying within the boundaries of the law. And we checked with the counsel on that and to ensure that the concern that the community have brought up as far as environmental issues are met. And thank goodness mr. Gun and his staff have worked diligently to revisit a lot of these things and a lot of things that we have looked at up to the date was not included in this process before this thing started. And so what more can I do as far as this is concerned? And I’d like to move forward, that's why I had a postponement for all of us to step back, let the process continue and see what the process is going to reveal and check a lot of things because there's a lot of unclarity, it's not clear. There's a lot of ambiguity in a lot of these things. Let the process go through it. That's what I’m suggesting. I’m not --
>> that was an eloquent response, the things that you just listed. You're right, that's the reason you ought to ask for that because you are clearly not in a spot to where you're comfortable in voting for that. I with respect that, Commissioner Davis. If I felt that way I would have made the motion as well. I with respect that.
>> I want to have it plain, I am not satisfied that all county requirements have been met, period.
>> there are a few legal questions that Commissioner Daugherty may have, and I may have myself. So I think we need to convene in executive session and discuss this item and hopefully come back and vote on the substitute. And if it fails then go to the original motion. But under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act, we will now convene in executive session to discuss item number 3, which I did not announce because I thought we were going to postpone it. Three is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, forest city sweetwater, lp. 3-b, sweetwater ranch, section 1, preliminary plan in precinct 3, 561 total lots, 544 residential, 16 m.u.d. And homeowners' lots and one commercial lot, 311.4 acres, state highway 71 west, no fiscal required for this preliminary plan, sewage service to be provided by lazy nine m.u.d. And 3-c is -- owe by the way, b says also no e.t.j. 3-c, sweetwater ranch section 2, preliminary plan in precinct 3, 1296 total lots, 1258 residential, 38 m.u.d. And homeowners association lots, 735.5 acres, state highway 71 west, no fiscal required for this preliminary plan, sewage service to be provided by lazy nine m.u.d., no e.t.j. We will simply discuss this matter in counsel in executive session, but will take no action until we return to open court.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed item no. 3 regarding the sweetwater subdivision with legal counsel. And we had a motion and a substitute motion before us when we left. The substitute motion was to take specific action one way or the other.
>> I would like to withdraw my second.
>> is there another second to the substitute motion? And the substitute motion dies for lack of a second. The original motion is from Commissioner Davis, and that was to postpone action on item number 3.
>> judge, based on -- that's based on the -- the postponement is based on the fact that I don't think it meets county requirements, but I’d also like to direct staff. I’d also like to direct staff into the issues that concern state farm water, -- storm water, wastewater issue, also highway 71 issue, and have staff report back to us when they research these findings.
>> Commissioner Davis, if it's friendly in terms of the -- really the wastewater issues, my specific questions about whether this is meeting our county requirements, it's not only the pump and haul issues that we've raised with tceq, but for me I have some serious questions about the location of that wastewater plant and I still have some unresolved questions related to the use of spray irrigation. So these are all things that tie into the final permits that are necessary out of tceq because of not knowing that. Again, I have serious questions about whether this meets our county regulations at this time.
>> and I will accept that as a friendly.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner, do you --
>> is it friendly, Commissioner Gomez?
>> yes, it's friendly. And I would go back to simply say that the reason I seconded that motion is that I believe that it doesn't -- [ inaudible ]. I’m talking about the very basic thing that we rely on, the health code, public safety, and those are the things.
>> so the motion is to postpone and direct staff to do further work. Yes?
>> but they do all of their work completely before it keeps coming back and take all the time necessary to get the issues settled.
>> I think the operative word for me would be necessary. Is there any way, Commissioner Davis, that you can give us a definitive time as to -- I’d rather staff go, I want this thing in three weeks. I want it in two weeks. Could we do that?
>> I guess the point is I don't really know -- once you start doing your investigative work, sometimes you run into things that need a little more time. So I put an umbrella around it. At this time I’ll put a stranglehold on it. It may hamper the necessary answers as far as to ensure that they come up under county regulations. So I don't want to tie them down to offset or bypass any opportunity for us to meet county regulations.
>> I also want to put in the record as well that there is a new letter from forest city sweetwater, mr. Gunn, it is dated February 6, 2006. That is yesterday. I just got this at my home, it was forwarded to me when the judge forwarded it out to all of us. So there are changes even being considered by the developer as of less than 24 hours ago. So this thing is still not cooked yet in terms of where people want to finally land. So that too is -- it's still changing as of less than 24 hours ago before our meeting. So that needs to be analyzed by the staff. I don't have a response from staff to -- a memo that just came out yesterday. There are things that still need to be done in terms of the response on storm water and drainage issues and wastewater utility issues and highway 71 improvements. And again, it clearly ties back to I am not convinced that they have met all county requirements at this time.
>> any more discussion on the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty. Thank y'all for coming down.
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, February 8, 2006 10:44 AM