Travis County Commissioners Court
June 6, 2006
Item 16
Number 16, consider and take action on application by waste management inc. For basic development permit for lots 1 through 3, block a, waste management subdivision in northeast Travis County. We would pull up 17 next.
>> good morning. Waste management has filed an application for basic development permit in August of this year -- last year, excuse me. This is to develop a subdivision that has been approved by the court in November of 2004. Basically the, the basic development permit is one that we require of all development in Travis County. Anybody that moves dirt on a piece of property would be required to have the basic development permit. We have two classes of permit, a and b, and primarily it's an opportunity for us to look at what's going on with regard to development in the floodplain because we have floodplain regulations. We would also look at their drainage. Look at their site distances on driveways and other associated issues where the county has adopted policy regarding roads and drainage in subdivisions. Tnr has looked at the application by waste management and has determined that it does comply with our adopted regulations. But we are also keenly aware that the Commissioners court has taken a larger policy position with regard to the use of that same profit for the expansion of the landfill on u.s. Highway 290. We're trying to be both in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by the court, but also conscious of the larger policy issues that are at play here. Tnr would recommend the approval of the basic development permit because it does comply with our policies and procedures. On the other hand, we would condition that permit with specific wording so that we're clearly communicating not only with the applicant, but the public at large. We would have the wording -- this wording added to the permit. And let me quote. Issuance of this permit is based solely on the applicant's compliance with the limited provisions of chapter 82 and chapter 84 Travis County code.
>> 64.
>> 64, I知 sorry. 64, Travis County code. It does not directly or indirectly constitute Travis County's acquiescence with applicant's proposed land use or finding or determination that, one, that the applicant's proposed land use is compatible with surrounding land uses. Two, that the site is otherwise suitable for the applicant's proposed land use. Or three, that the applicant is -- that the applicant has adequately mitigated or can adequately mitigate all impacts that his proposed land use would have on adjacent properties or the community. End of quote. And this is by and large the land use that we're speaking of is the proposed use for the site for an expansion of the landfill. And we want to make sure that if the court chooses to permit the basic development permit, because it does comply -- otherwise comply with the regulations. The laws do not say in any form or fashion that we agree with the use of this property for an expanded landfill.
>> what land is this, joe?
>> this is what's called the wilder tract. This is the property that's adjacent to the existing permitted landfill. We know that the intent of waste management is -- it has filed an application with the state agency, tceq, for a permit from the state to expand the landfill on to this wilder tract.
>> so what do we think this language gets us?
>> it basically allows the court to proceed to issue a permit because the obligation conforms with your policies and procedures, but at the same time not communicate anything more than that, specifically with regard to the pending permit before tceq. We're not trying to muddy the water here. We want to be very clear with tceq what our policy position is with regard to the land use.
>> where did this come from?
>> this has been developed in conjunction with the county attorney's office.
>> questions from the court?
>> joe, take me -- help me understand or remind us all, a preliminary plan is a discretionary act of the court. A final plat is not a discretionary act, it's kind of a administerial duty. Where does the issuance of the site development plan land? If somebody does not get one, what is their recourse?
>> I believe that's probably a legal determination.
>> what is the process?
>> it's really not so much that preliminary plan final plat for development permit are discretionary actions. The bottom line on all three is that you have to look at what's in the county regulations when you decide whether to approve those or not. Generally when you look at the regulations, you have more discretion about a preliminary plan than saying there are public health, safety and welfare issues and therefore we're not approving it. And in contrast, when you get to the final plat stage and the development permit stage, your regulations give you less discretion, but the bottom line is if they meet county regulations, you're supposed to approve it. And if they do meet county regulations and you deny it, then the applicant can go ask a judge to mandamus you to issue it. So what joe's telling you is that tnr thinks they meet all the regulations. And that if you denied this permit, you could probably get mandamussed over at the courthouse, so you're not in a position to deny it, but you are in a position to clarify what your action means. And by adding this language, you're sending a signal specifically to tceq that any claim that Travis County is okay with this landfill because we issued a permit for it would be an incorrect statement.
>> so it's kind of similar to what we did a couple of weeks ago where on sweetwater a final plat was issued on various parts of sweetwater, but in the same Commissioners court meeting we approved language kind of like single spaced, full pages, being very specific about Travis County's concerns -- call them objections, but let's call them concerns related to the issuance of a wastewater permit through the tceq. So those are not inconsistent kinds of statements.
>> your decision on the sweetwater preliminars and final plat was it meets county regulations. Now, that's not a finding that it meets some other set of regulations, that some other governmental entity has adopted, mainly tceq. It's the same situation here. You're just saying this permit meets county regulations. Whether it meets tceq regulations is an entirely separate, distinct different issue that remains to be seen and which you can take whatever position you want to take on.
>> so this on its surface would not reverse out or call into question because we are making this very clear, the stance of this Commissioners court on a 5-0 vote to oppose waste management's expansion on the tract before the tceq?
>> correct.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> this does not negate, cancel out the stance of the Commissioners court on a 5-0 vote to oppose waste management's expansion before the tceq.
>> with that question, I know it was probable that the Commissioners court did take to oppose the expansions of waste management of Texas at that particular site. I guess my question then would become has there been any case at all or any history, per se, to -- here on the one hand you have tceq that have received opposition language to an expansion of this particular landfill operator, and on the other hand the court has looked at the requirements that apparently this particular landfill operator, wmi, have met, therefore there's a permit issue. And with these two dual settings, is there any history to suggest where tceq has landed on this issue? See, we have two views, one procedural -- I think we mentioned the filing plat and site development plan and all this other stuff according to staff, and also legal that they have met those requirements, but on the other hand we've opposed. Is there an existence of those kind of opposite views -- (indiscernible). Has there been anything that suggests tceq involvement in such a reading of the two different approaches?
>> if you're asking if there's precedent for that and how tceq came down, I don't know, Commissioner. I couldn't answer that question.
>> that's the question. Because I think it's very important, and I know this Commissioners court did take a position on it. How much merit does that have with tceq? How much merit and leverage does the permit requirement being upheld because of your mandamus considerations? Those things I think are very valid points and very valid questions. Now, the point is where did it land? I do know that in the effort of trying to deal with this landfill issue for a long, long time, I think there are some other things that we need to be pursuing down the road, but that's another issue. And that is for them to come with closure and for us to accommodate and facilitate as much as possible to look for a new green fill site. That has not happened, and it suggests to me that this is not going to be -- they're going to continue to pursue their expansion possibilities in this location. So we are still at a crossroads. And I guess at the end of the day, tceq would have to make a decision one way or the other. This is what I知 hearing staff and legal saying as far as the procedures. So those are some things that I think need to be considered. Thank you.
>> I think we have a representative here. I need you on the microphone. I need to have agreement on two or three points. Joe described a basic development permit. Right, joe?
>> that's correct.
>> and which which brings into play chapter 64 and 82, 64 and 82, and the backup memo indicates that these regulations focus on site grading plans, drainage improvements, including erosion and sediment control measures, floodplain determinations and setbacks. And it says the county -- these county regulations do not address land use. There's agreement on that.
>> correct.
>> and Travis County is officially in opposition to the application to expand.
>> we fully understand that.
>> and our agreement is that's not what's before us today.
>> that's correct.
>> and the limited language that we propose provided by the county attorney's office basically is intended to set forth that limitation. That it is not the court's intention to express any opinion on suitability of this land for a landfill today.
>> I understand that.
>> so there's agreement on that basically.
>> anything else, joe?
>> that's it.
>> john in
>> john
>> no, sir.
>> residents have come down today on this item. Would y'all like to give testimony or address the court or ask questions?
>> thanks, judge. I live in northeast Austin. And I would ask that you not support this particular proposal. If we know anything, it's that appearance is important, and I deeply appreciate the fact that the Commissioners voted 5-0 to vote against the expansion of this landfill. I feel that it is important for them not to say they have a foot in the door by saying the Commissioners did say it was okay for us to do this, and certainly it will be a very small matter for them to get a judge to do this. So I would suggest that you not vote in favor of this and let them do whatever they need to do to accomplish that. Their public relations slogan is think green, and I suggest that they do that by leaving the dirt where it is and planting grass on it. I知 astound that had they even need dirt. That whole area between waste management and their twin landfill, bfi, is beginning to look like a mountain range, sans vegetation. And I think the dirt needs to stay where it is with grass on it. Thank you.
>> ms. English?
>> this is a new tact for you to be taking. I wonder -- my wonderment is how in the world did we get this far without knowing what our guidelines said that we had to give them the permit? And this is the first time I致e heard this. I think if we have to give them a permit under the guidelines that you currently have, I make a motion that the guidelines be looked at seriously and that they be altered to a way that will really allow you to represent the people in the way that we need to be represented. It does give a mixed message to tceq. They have a lot of different people over there who look at materials. One person will look at it and say (indiscernible). No. They don't see the part that says that the county Commissioners voted 5-0 against supporting this. You're putting us the citizens in the area when you put in or allow it to be there that the applicant has adequately mitigated or can adequately mitigate all impacts that its proposed land use would have on adjacent properties and communities. That's me! I致e been talking to you about that for a long time. It's not new. What I知 saying is not new. We recently had another event with the gas. The newspaper says that people -- (indiscernible). Don't you believe it. The kids across the street from me, judge Biscoe, the johnson children, were outside during that time. We are having bombardment. This is not on the landfill, but it is a part of what we experience. You need good and strong guidelines that protect we the people. And so my recommendation if you're sending one message that says permit because our guidelines are weak, strengthen your guidelines. The other part is you have unanimously voted. What can we do to see that everybody at tceq sees, that you oppose 5-0, not just some of the staff people. They've continued to bomb board or -- bombard our neighborhood. They made a deal to provide a very nice walkway. When they did that when I was fighting them for a long time is an insult to me. There's no way I would put trash in that. The others also ended up contributing a rolloffs. All three rolloffs were full to the very brim by our one small neighborhood. It would have been unethical for them to do that and for them to be the only one. And besides this, this is their newsletter. They came and got the rolloff out of my driveway the same day I received this in the mail. It was delivered on Monday, April the 10th, 2006. This was strictly a publicity thing. So be careful.
>> ms. English, in the first part of the sentence, I see that number 3 there, but when you start that sentence where you say, it does not directly or indirectly constitute Travis County's acquiescence --
>> judge --
>> does cha thank the interpretation of when we pick up the first part of the sentence?
>> no, it doesn't. I read the first part of the sentence. What you're saying is double-talk. It's legal double-talk.
>> thank you. Will you be giving testimony today, you and mrs. Mcafee?
>> yes. This is trek english. I would like before I start, if mr. Knuckles could reexplain to me the language about the mandamus obligation. Or how did you phrase it?
>> when the county adopts a set of regulations by which we approve or deny preliminary plan or final plat or basic development permit, what the law says is that those regulations control the county's decision. And our regulations don't say and probably couldn't say that the Commissioners court can deny a permit just because they don't like it. The regulations basically are engineering type criteria. And what the tnr staff is saying is that in this case wmi meets all of those engineering criteria, so they satisfy all of the county regulations. So according to the law, wmi would be entitled to the permit.
>> or what would happen?
>> well, if Travis County denied the permit, wmi could file a lawsuit and go argue to a judge that they did indeed meet all of the county regulations and therefore the law entitles them to the permit.
>> I understand that.
>> and a separate question as to whether the county has the authority to put into its regulations, we can deny a permit for solid waste facility based on its too close to a floodplain, it's too close to a creek, it's too close to a neighborhood. We've done that, but there are a couple of issues here as I understand it that the expansion satisfies all of the criteria of the floodplain ordinance. , what we call the floodplain ordinance. So no waste is within 500 feet of a floodplain. And I知 providing that as an example. I mean, the county has the authority to say -- to adopt a set of criteria that says we won't approve a permit for a landfill, but in this case this landfill satisfies that criteria.
>> okay. Well, I appreciate your explanation very much and I understand it; however, there's a part of it that I don't agree because what you left out is one critical I willment of the argument and that is your primary rule is to protect human health and the environment and that this permit for land development does not address human health and the environment and it doesn't meet your erosion control. And sedimentation, runoff --
>> ms. Trek, that's an issue I can't address. Those are engineering criteria, and I can't look at the regulations as a lawyer and make a judgment on whether the erosion is bad. I can't answer those questions for you.
>> I understand that, but the recommendation of tnr is that because it meets all of those regulations, it should be granted because you don't have enough basics to deny it. And I do think -- first of all, we're back to where we started in 2001 when we started with the ordinance and where the threat of a lawsuit was held over our head, throughout the entire negotiations that they required or that they requested, wanting to talk about the ordinance and discuss it so we could get a better ordinance, and it never went anywhere. And now we're under the same threat, what I call blackmail litigation that if you don't do what they want, they can again through the county -- you would incur costs trying to defend yourself. I don't feel that these are corporations we should do business with. These are war lords. That's what they do. They impose these huge legal liabilities on people if you don't do it their ways. Except the rulers in the third world country just go around killing you. These guys just kill you with lawsuits. So I want to file a protest for them constantly being able to just push this button of lawsuits on the -- on anything that you've attempted to do protecting human health and the environment, not just wanting a landfill. Nobody is asking you to say no based on nothing. We're asking you to say no based on protection of the human health and the environment.
>> trek, let me clarify. You would have to ask the Commissioners court to say no based on what is in the Travis County regulations. If you believe and if you can show this permit does not meet Travis County regulations, you can make that argument to the Commissioners court.
>> I am. And I知 going to ask you to please deny this permit because the application -- not the application because I知 not even going to go into this, but the erosion and sedimentation control plan that they are proposing is not adequate. In my estimation it is not adequate. I am not arguing with your engineers because they look at it a different way. I know I am a victim of too much erosion and too much water, so I致e been looking at creeks completely differently not with a piece of paper on a table with drawings, I致e been looking at it virtually on a day-to-day basis and seeing the damage that water does when it's not properly detained. And the walnut creek watershed is suffering from accelerated erosion due to the increasing volume of storm water, which is the result of the increased area of impermeable surfaces and reduced absorption capacity by the landscape. Erosion of streams and creek banks caused additional sediment loading affecting property values, reducing access, creating safety hazard and degrading wildlife habitat. Because of restrictive channels for which waterways are confined, water velocities increase and creek banks erode, and the next thing you know, again the taxpayers have to come to the rescue of the people that have been affected because of the lack of land use authority that you keep claiming you have over these developments, whether it is a landfill or whether it is a development. Now, I understand that the subdivision actually creates houses and jobs -- people and jobs when they're constructed. These landfills create very little except to put a resource that's never going to be used again. So it's a dead area. And all have you to do is drive on 290 and see that there are acres and acres and acres of bare land, bare land. That these landfills have created. Bmi have these mightian art, -- they have piles of dirt. I don't know how many they have. Does anybody know why they have this dirt stockpiled? If you look at waste management, they've been there 25 years. They're now in the expansion, which they say they've gone through almost in three years; however, none of the footprint is green. Nothing has been revegetated. If it has, it's not holding up. You have over a square mile and a half of bare land in that area and now we're talking about another area that's going to be raised to the glownd. We have an area where the water line going to Pflugerville has been completely denuded and not really properly revegetated, and on and on. Now we're talking about a 10 lane toll road which will create even more death and more pollution. Which will this stop for this little quadrant of the city? Fangly to give this permit is to add to the pollution in the area. And based on the problems that are present on walnut creek, this permit should be denied because their erosion and sedimentation control is not adequate. They're talking about taking that whole area, not the one they want to expand, but the expansion that they're proposing and the expansion they're in now, that whole area is going to drain in that little pond that they're creating and they're not even addressing wet land mitigation, nothing. Has anybody reviewed their erosion control plan? I知 sorry, but I don't feel that it's adequate and I don't feel it should be granted based on the new fema maps that actually the plan was filed. The new fema maps are filed. Do they need the old one or the new one? What is going to happen when the watershed is fully built. I know when an engineer looks at the watershed when it is fully developed, but that's not true, because if that was true, our properties would not be on the buyout program. If that's what has been done for the last 10 years, then we shouldn't be having such serious problem now in walnut creek. It's not a fully developed watershed because we still have another 10 years before that watershed even comes to over the 50% development that it's supposed to have. So you should see how much this whole watershed is going to cost you. So I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for opposing this expansion, but I feel that this development permit also needs to be denied because it opens the door to some serious, serious flooding and erosion problems downstream. And I don't know if you received this. This came to me from the Austin-san antonio corridor council where last week the senate banking committee approved unanimously the most sweeping reforms ever in the 38-year history of the national flood insurance program where subsidy is now for homeowners, businesses, recreation, homes, whatever, all of these -- I didn't realize that flood insurance was being subsidized, premiums were being subsidized. Considering mine has gone from 300 to 1500, I知 having a hard time understanding where it is subsidized, but according to them it's being subsidized, and you're going to see some serious premiums being charged from now on. And I think this is going to create a lot of screaming down the road. I don't know if you got it or not. By the way, I just wanted to show you, this is a landfill. This is one before slope failure and this is after slope failure. I don't know if you can see this, but if we're not careful here -- we have years where we have 35 to 40 inches of rain. I think we need to take that into consideration. And the erosion control plan is not -- is not adequate. We know what happened in 2001 when we had that big washout and there was a lot more land between them and us at that time. They're now closer. We've lost thousands of feet where they're expanding and I think if you have another torrential rain you will see the results yourself and the cleanup that's going to ensue. Thank you very much.
>> good morning, judge. , Commissioners. I likewise would like to start by thanking you from the bottom of my heart by voting 5-0 against the waste management expansion of the landfill. As you know from all our years of discussing this, in addition to the 11,000-barrels of toxic waste that was dumped adjacent to this area, there was an estimated three million gallons of toxic waste that was not in barrels that was dumped in this rough area. Now, in this Commissioners court, david samuelson leaned over to me and said -- at the time it pertained to something that was on the agenda. He said don't worry, the blank is about to hit the fan, referring to his testimony that was about to come up. He said toxic waste was dumped all over that area. It's not just in the nine ache easy. Now, at this point the dirt that that was dumped in has been spread all over the place if what he said was true. Unfortunately he was unable to testify before his death. The toxic waste, when it's properly handled, will stay in one place. It's going to bind to the particles of -- dust particles and float miles and miles. If what he says is true, then moving dirt around in this area is just not a good plan for the health of the residents in this area. So in terms of the welfare, the noise and the dirt -- and we have to wash our business very, very often because of the landfilling, which is still aways away, but if they start removing dirt, tons and tons of dirt from an area even closer to us, not only will we be like constantly dirty basically, but we will be constantly hearing the noise, which will not go at all with a garden ceremony business obviously. So as trek was saying, the tax base has been just -- we've got a tumor in the middle of our metropolitan area basically. I believe from a health and welfare standpoint this should be denied. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. So joe, this development permit will allow what to happen?
>> it will allow us to have dirt on the wilder tract, grade the property. I understand their intent is to transfer some of the dirt from the existing site to cover the existing landfill. So all those activities would be permitted under the basic development permit. They can proceed to develop the tract.
>> it's basically to have future expansion operations there in the event of new sales being determined in that particular site. Is that a fact?
>> I知 not sure I understand. Are you talking about the disposal cell which is not permitted yet?
>> yes.
>> they are moving dirt and they are preparing -- you might look at this as a preparation for the permit that they seek from tceq. So they're able to actually if not granted the permit, they're still able to basically use the dirt from the wilder tract to cover dirt on the already permitted site next door.
>> are we convinced that the likelihood of tceq viewing our actions as accuse qui he ising to the expansion application is realistic in view of our formal vote to oppose that expansion?
>> I think it ought to be our intent to make sure that they understand exactly how we issued this permit and under what specific wording we issued this permit. So I think on our part we need to do a little follow through with the tceq staff so they clearly understand the limits of what we did here today.
>> so if I understand what I知 hearing, joe, the opposition letter that came from this Commissioners court a 5-0 vote opposing the expansion of wmi --
>> it certainly can. It's in part of our backup, so the backup itself was clear about the prior action of the Commissioners court. We can sort of add that as we transmit any information, tceq can also add that transcript.
>> because what I was hearing was that on the one hand the testimony from one of the citizens, that they have looked at the 5-0 vote and -- that they're looking at both of them at the same time.
>> sure. We understood what this item was put before us what the conflict could be.
>> exactly.
>> joe, would we have the ability to send a follow-up letter to tceq to basically say -- to put in this language and say that in very clean, easy to understand language, that the Travis County Commissioners court remains unanimously opposed to the expansion of the wilder tract for landfill purposes. That they've got a basic development permit which would allow them to do some site clearing and send dirt next door, but it does not allow them to put a new landfill on that land and we remain opposed. So there's no doubt that these things are not inconsistent.
>> we can certainly do that. If that's the wish of the court we can draft that letter and make sure it's transmitted to tceq, all the attachments, and have clear commitments to tceq what we have.
>> this would allow them to scoop up dirt and send it over to where they are permitted to have a landfill and cells, correct?
>> that's right.
>> do they have permission to be able to move stuff from their other site on to the wilder tract without permission of the tceq?
>> no.
>> okay.
>> you know, I think that -- I clearly see the difference between the two. I would feel a little better if there were a letter from us signed by the appropriate representative from waste management that acknowledges the request for the development permit and the circumstances under which Travis County grants it. I壇 feel a whole lot better if -- it's okay for that letter to come from Travis County, but it's kind of unlateral. It would be better if it were signed by Travis County and the appropriate representative from waste management. And I did ask john a few questions a few minutes ago and got answers on record. I feel a little better, I think, with a letter. It would just say basically by granting the development permit, Travis County does not intend to waive its opposition to the application to expand. I think I壇 feel a lot better. It would cost another week, though. Do you have issues with that?
>> why would it need to cost another week?
>> to get the letter together.
>> I don't understand why the letter isn't more than what we have got before us right here? It's cut and paste.
>> if the letter can be ready this afternoon, it's fine with me. But it would need to be signed at some point.
>> judge, is that the condition underwhich the permit would be approved?
>> it's conditioned with which my vote would be affirmative.
>> if that's the condition underwhich the permit is going to be approved, then we have no choice but to respond that way. I think that -- I don't think it's necessary. I think that what you're doing is abundantly clear for everybody in the world. I think that if a clear reading of the law will tell you exactly what we can and can't do on the wilder tract, which is take the approval of this permit. And I致e already stated in the record that waste management understands that y'all have unanimously voted to oppose the expansion on the wilder tract, and that the approval of this site development permit or basic development permit doesn't affect that. I don't think that -- you didn't ask others before when you've made approvals of basic development permits to sign letters expressing their understanding of what is clearly the law, but if you see fit to make us do that at this point in time, then I don't have any choice.
>> I壇 feel a whole lot better.
>> I don't know if it has to be signed by wm. Certainly to have the five of us and attach whatever transcript you want, which would have mr. Joseph's record in there.
>> the letter from one side expresses our intention and I think it would be meaningless. I think if it's signed by both of us would be stronger evidence of both of us understanding the reasons why the development permit is executed today. Now, my vote may not be necessary. I think it's pretty simple and pretty straightforward. It would be nice in the future if I could pull out a letter that said on that day both of us understood what we were doing and the reasons why, and this letter executed shortly thereafter clearly shows it.
>> I don't have any problem with the statement that we understand that the court is not changing its stance with respect to the opposition of the expansion on the wilder tract by virtue of approving this basic development permit. And if that's the language that you want me to -- if that's the letter that you want me to write to you, I don't think I壇 have a problem with that. I don't understand why I have to write a letter to anyone else stating what is clearly the law.
>> my concern is we've been bumping heads, you and i, on this issue, and I知 going to continue to bump your head and you bump mine. There's nothing wrong with that. But I think that the community has spoken very clearly. You're a problem in this community, a big problem for that neighborhood. There are a whole lot of things that you have imposed on this community, and I think unjustifiably. Really, and john, you all have talked about moving out of that area for years. Bfi looking for another location. And you haven't come back with anything positive, but yet you're coming back to the community to expand the operations. I don't think that's fair to the community especially since we proposed and said you need a green fill site and get the heck out of there. But really I brought that up as far as measuring the reference of what position the Commissioners court has taken as far as getting a unanimous vote in opposition. And really it combined that with whatever the court decides to do as far as going forward to tceq so there would not be any misunderstanding of what the court had done and the court's position on your expansion, and that is to oppose it. And I think both of them being jointly put together on what they would have, I have no idea. I知 going to make a motion to oppose this particular site development. I need it to be clear that my position still is firm because I think the community has echoed the sentiment of their concerns in that area, health problems and other things like that, public safety. And a host of other things that we can go on all day about, but we don't have to revisit al of them. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> all that I was asking for is I understand that you are not changing your mind on the on the expansion permit. But what this request this morning was to ask you to -- to leave us a small amount of green area, within that -- within that -- that abomination that is the quadrant between giles and springdale and 290 and blue goose. We have to leave some vegetation there. And there has been too many activities in the last five years that have taken away, taken aware more and more green space. So there's nothing. We need trees. The gas you can see if you drive through our neighborhood has affected a lot of trees. Coming off the landfill I don't know what will be affected. I知 asking for some trees to absorb the methane, to absorb the gases, that is protection of human health and the environment. Not just for the heck of it.
>> have you gotten permission to put a landfill there, trek.
>> what?
>> they haven't gotten permission to --
>> once you excavate dirt you have nothing left.
>> what methane is created by them moving dirt in part to move dirt over on to the other side to get that --
>> there's no methane being created I知 sorry if that is what I said.
>> that is exactly what you said.
>> what I知 saying is we need trees to absorb the gases. Trees clean up the air. If you have no trees left in the quadrant between couple square miles how do you expect, the rest is being used for development of homes, how are we going to deal with --
>> ms. English.
>> I have not heard one argument that the development of homes needs to be stopped because they are disturbing dirt and putting more homes out there. You have not come to -- to oppose any --
>> is that what you want to do is start opposing homes, too.
>> the question is inconsistent in saying every other piece of dirt out there can be disturbed other than this particular tract, which doesn't give them permission to put a landfill there.
>> can we get back to -- to judge Biscoe's recommendation that waste management also sign a letter with the county that is a joint presentation? Mr. Joseph I知 so sorry that you are offended that we would ask this of you. But you haven't been -- your corporation has not proven to be a trustworthy person and let the law come forth. And so I think you had a wonderful idea, judge Biscoe. To -- to have both people sign Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned attaching the letter of recommendation, that it was totally opposed with that permit. I think that's a grand idea. And I hope that you will get over being offended, mr. Joseph.
>> ms. Mcfever any brief comments. Less a comment than a question, I have heard today in all of the discussions is that -- that there to me the issue is whether you grant or not grant this permit to move dirt, involves a larger question that needs to be looked at, and addressed in that if the region will be -- will be harmed by that much exposure of dirt, should that be looked at as more permits are applied for exposing more dirt. At what point should and can this be addressed in relation to walnut creek and the problems that are there. In -- in isolation, perhaps permit is all right and meets the -- the letter of the law. But if you continue to -- to have that much dirt and that many areas, at what point is it a detriment and -- and a wrong decision.
>> any response, joe?
>> I --
>> you have to although at every permit in its own basis. We don't look at the cumulative impacts of permits issued in a watershed, I mean it would be very difficult for us to do that.
>> if we were to start doing that, I guess it would require some sort of policy change.
>> well, at one point, who do you -- I mean, very difficult to -- at what point do you say that one permit was the drop in the bucket that made the -- made the total impact to occur? I mean, it -- it's -- it's -- it's somewhat -- distinguished between land uses, what the difference between a housing development that moves as much dirt as a proposed landfill expansion as moves an equal amount of dirt, if you both have the same impact on sanitation in the watershed, and so it's -- it's -- we are not in the position of judging one land use from another, in part because of our regulatory constraint, but also when you are asking us to look at the cumulative impact of individual permits as they are granted, we would have to have some measuring stick to be able to say x point of development then we should not permit any future developments to come. We just don't have that capability at this point.
>> where do you put in the movement of dirt on a 50-mile state highway with right-of-way in place of a thousand to 2,000 feet. In terms of movement of dirt, we've had the record movement of dirt out there and no one said shut down s.h. 130 they are going to move some dirt.
>> but time is an issue, too. At how -- how many months, how many years was that dirt a problem and if you have that amount of dirt for 10 years, you already have a problem on the creek, you can see that one year, two year, it's all --
>> s.h. 130 is -- has blown everything out of the water in terms of movement of dirt.
>> move that we approve the application for development permit to be accompanied by a simple letter setting forth the understanding signed by Travis County and waste management.
>> second.
>> judge? Would that include that letter that -- the original letter that showed opposition.
>> yes, sir.
>> to --
>> that's fine with me.
>> the original letter in other words that showed opposition.
>> the minutes are you talking about?
>> no, no, no, the option letter that the Commissioner had a unanimous vote opposing the expansion, that original one, the very first one?
>> I put it -- does anybody think that -- that there are any question as to where he we stand with it. Put it on there, that's fine. Good god.
>> that's probably on record now anyway.
>> for that to accompany the letter fine with me. I don't know -- late afternoon, probably 3 or 4:00, based on how we are looking.
>> let me make a substitute motion, that is that -- that we do not [indiscernible] site development permit for wmi that's come before tceq permit number 05-300. [indiscernible] do not approve, [indiscernible]
>> is there a second for the substitute motion? Then we are back to the original motion, approval of the development permit with a letter. All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you.
>> and if we can have that ready late this afternoon, 4:00 or 5:00, not ready today, it's kind of clear what should be in the letter. I guess we can sign it tomorrow, but before close of business today would be better.
>> [indiscernible]
>> I think -- joe and tom clearly understand the court's --
>> to be signed by whom, judge?
>> well, either the county judge or the whole court and if john is authorized by waste management, an appropriate representative from waste management doesn't bother me.
>> between now and the time [indiscernible]
>> okay. Thank you.
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, June 7, 2006 12:54 PM