Travis County Commissioners Court
April 3, 2007
Item 16
Number 16 is to discuss and take appropriate action on a development permit application for a proposed water quality detention pond on the bfi sunset farms landfill site at 10200 giles lane. That's in Austin, Texas.
>> good morning, judge. Joe gieselman stacy
>> [indiscernible] around john kuhl from the transportation natural resources department. We have been asked by bfi, since that -- to place this item on the agenda. Typically, the -- the t.n.r. Would not have a permit on the court agenda. Typically if -- if the applicant meets the requirements of the county, the staff would review and approve it and move on. Because this permit is associated with the landfill and we have had some differences of opinion regarding their permit with tceq to expand the landfill, we thought it was appropriate for the court to actually weigh in on this issue. The permit is for the detention pond that would enable the expansion from a staff perspective the permit does meet our requirements and we would otherwise issue the permit because it does. But there is a policy issue here regarding the county's position on the expansion itself. And we didn't want to -- to give the appearance, if by some approval of this perm, the county was -- this permit, that the county was inadvertently agreeing with the applicant's request to expand the landfill itself. We believe that there can be a way to issue the permit with conditions. Those conditions clearly state that this in no way would -- would have the county's position change with regard to its opposition to the expansion itself. But it's truly a -- a policy issue for the court on whether to grant the permit. Even under those conditions.
>> let me ask you a couple of questions. If the county does not grant the permit, then the next step will be -- that b.f.i. Would take would be to go to tceq to still be awarded that permit.
>> it is our permit, the county's permit. I think you are probably asking a legal question on what remedy the applicant may have if the court does not approve the permit.
>> yeah.
>> [multiple voices]
>> civil procedure there that they can use, but -- but otherwise it's not a tceq authority to issue a floodplain permit. The permit that the applicant is otherwise seeking is for the landfill expansion. So this permit has to do with the floodplain regulations of the county. It is a -- we are doing that under the federal program, floodplain management program.
>> I know that. I'm not talking about that portion. I'm talking about the expansion portion of this thing. In other words
>> [indiscernible] in other words they are wanting to expand anyway at that site. Of course by expanding at that site, this particular permit with the desense pond, all of this other kind of stuff -- detention pond, all of this other kind of stuff would accommodate the expansion. My question is by -- I don't know whether we can do it or not. But I do know that -- that I'm opposed to that expansion and of course you know the folks out there at bluebonnet elementary school have been, you know, hollering and screaming for quite some time about the operations that are going on there currently. And to allow expansion to take place in a situation that's already harmful to people, in my opinion, is still not the appropriate direction to go. So I guess my question, though, is this: if the county does not agree, to -- to this particular permit for a detention pond to accommodate, to accommodate b.f.i.'s expansion, then what -- what legal parameters would -- would invoke -- would be invoked that would not take place. In other words, approving or granting the permit, because the expansion is still something that -- that I'm definitely going to continue to oppose. That -- that landfill out there.
>> any answers?
>> I don't have a legal response to that, no.
>> b.f.i., can you tell us about the expansion that's on -- the application that is on the agenda today and the expansion and ms. English if you will come forward, we know that you will have comments for us today. We will take those next. Then we will have staff read into the record the proposed language. There is a condition that you are -- that you are proposing. What about the application before us, which is a pond, and the expansion application that is before the tceq and I guess at some point will be -- will be processed. I'm brad
>> [indiscernible] allied waste district manager here, I have ray here to talk about any technical -- this is really a technical issue more than the greater plan that Commissioner Davis is talking about, which will become the permit at large. The tceq permit amendment. Which is -- recently declared technically complete. There will be public notices going out of what the process is of the hearings that we will be proceeded for that case and that amendment. This is the only item that the city of Austin is tied to the permit with. So we wanted to go ahead, there's a clock ticking over there. We wanted to go ahead and try to put this back on the table because it's pretty straightforward. It's storm water drainage management issue.
>> we will be coming back to the county for the development permit for the landfill explanation at a later time when we feel that we have met all of the county's requirements. That issue will certainly be debated then.
>> so for the record this is pond and drainage.
>> detention pond only, that is correct.
>> detention pond only.
>> there is one there, this is just a little larger.
>> the importance of the pond expansion today, one is to meet city of Austin requirements.
>> there's a companion permit to the city for the same pond. It's actually a tceq requirement to address the drainage for the landfill which is part of the tceq permit.
>> what's the importance of doing that now?
>> well, one, we have again the permit submitted to the city of Austin, they have a time certain time line that we need to try to meet over there. And it kind of cleans that piece of it up. It doesn't -- it doesn't take anybody's position of opposition to the landfill permit away. In any fashion. And again it's just a technical element of -- having it in place.
>> joe, let's get it on the record the conditions that staff recommends.
>> let me go ahead and read into the record the condition. The permittee acknowledges bicepping this permit that Travis County is neither authorizing nor expressing any position on any requested expansion of any facility for solid waste management on or adjacent to the site. Issuance of this permit is based solely on the permittees compliance with the limited provisions of chapter 82 and chapter 64 of the Travis County code. It does not directly or indirectly constitute Travis County's acquiesce with the permittee's land use or finding or determination, one, that the permittees land use is compatible with the surrounding land uses;, two, that the site is otherwise suitable for the permittees land use, or, 3, that the permittee has adequately mitigated or can adequate all impacts on the adjacent properties or the community. What do we believe that language does for us?
>> basically, it main obtains our position of opposition to the expansion itself.
>> we are officially of record opposing it for it -- if the request is to expand beyond November 1 of 2015. That's the court's vote so far.
>> if -- in other words, if b.f.i. Could not go over and say well the county approved our development permit and implied by that that there is something larger than explicitly what we authorize.
>> almost like a marriage. If -- if the county doesn't -- doesn't go along with it, I don't think the city will. And -- the issue is the landfill that's the issue. That you can sweeten it up all want, to but that is still the issue.
>> I need to ask a couple of questions. Is this pond necessary for the current operations at b.f.i.
>> there's an existing potential pond at the site. This is a larger pond that is to address the expansion.
>> the expansion exactly.
>> also provide sedimentation capability that the existing pond does not.
>> the larger pond is necessitated by your proposed expansion.
>> it's a components of the overall expansion.
>> exactly.
>> you have not yet received the -- the fema letter of map revision at this point, correct.
>> we received the conditional letter but not the final letter of map revision.
>> it's the final letter of map revision that would definitively state that you were in compliance with the necessary setbacks, is that correct.
>> that is correct.
>> when is that fema letter of map revision expected.
>> we have submitted it to the county for their coordination. We have received that. It's now being reviewed by the city of Austin.
>> I'm sorry, the final --
>> that's correct, we have to coordinate with both Travis County and the city of Austin before we submit it to fema. And the corps of engineers. As soon as it's reviewed and signed off on by the city, we will submit it to fema.
>> mr. Gieselman, in order for them to be compliant with chapters 82 and 64 of the Travis County code, is the final letter nets or just the provision -- necessary or just the provisional letter.
>> not for this permit. For the permit for the pond they do not let the map reviolation. The expansion permit the loamer.
>> what's the provision on November 1, 2015 as the maximum expansion date?
>> judge, we have committed to that in our permit application we have modified that with some subsequent submissions to requ or wefindnoth te.
>> we have asked them to include that date as
>> no matter what the court does today, November 1, 20 disce last two or three years.
>> ms. English on this item.
>> yes, sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. My name is trek english. For the record I'm not well prepared because to tell the truth I really don't have the -- the paperwork that goes with this -- with this new pond and for some reason we seem to be going around and around and around with the drainage problem that they have at the site. What they are proposing now should have been done at least two years ago when we documented that they had a drainage problem and they knew it. I'm sure this is one of the reasons that they are coming back because there's no way they can expand when they have a present drainage problem present capacity. And contour, so adding 75 feet to that contour is not going to help. The pond needs to be the size of connecticut in order to really address the problem with the draining of this size -- at this site. I'm concerned that no one is really taking into consideration the fact that -- that 75-foot expansion would almost double the contour of that landfill. Whether they like it or not, it will double their contour on the site, it will definitely affect the drainage much more than what they are proposing. You have to remember when they rechanneled the drainage, the creek when they rechanneled the creek a year or two ago, you all told us all they are going to make it look real pretty. They are going to rechannel, put trees and it's going to take care of it. Well, it hasn't. We know that because we have documented it to you that there's a problem when the waterfalls really ladder like he it has in the last couple of days, the downpours they are unable to cope with this. A disaster with a tremendous amount of rain, not quite as big but maybe the size of katrina, then the landfills are needed to address all of the problems around town, but these landfills are not going to be able to add it because they are having problems of their own. During the last big rains they had to close their landfill and use other landfills somewhere else in town in order to be able to take care of their garbage. Either we stop playings on playingostrich and get our headt of the ground and know there's a problem with the size of the lot, you can't keep going up and create more of a drainage problem. Everybody says if you leave in 2015 we don't care what kind of problem you create as long as you leave. That problem will stay with us forever we know it. The vegetation in the site now is nil, by the time they leave it will take 10 years or more for the vegetation to sustain the height of that landfill and be able to retain water on site. You are going to have a serious problem beside the fact that we have subdivisions, you are going to have more people screaming at you. So I would think, I would like to talk to the corps of engineers on this -- on this -- that's the third time that they are going to the corps of engineer for a conditional letter of revision and to this date I don't think that they have -- they have presented the factual contours of the site and what is going on around the silent. The corps of engineer has only given a certain amount of data in order to grant this. They don't have time to investigate anything that's presented to them. Even though the local staff of the county and the city don't have time to check everything. I think if the corps really realized what was going on here and the fact that they moved wetland and everything else without the right permits, I think they would look at the situation a little bit closer. So I would advise you to perhaps get in touch with the corps and tell them the reality of the site. Especially with the 75-foot expansion. I mean maybe this pond was needed in the present capacity, if you add to this capacity, then what they are proposing is inadequate. Thank you.
>> okay. Any questions for ms. English?
>> thank you, judge, Commissioner, I'm joyce best. It's difficult to speak to the technical aspects of this. The copy that I have of the -- of the plan is practically I will eligible, so it's very -- I will illegibln so it's very difficult to speak so that. Seems to me if we are being asked to allow for an expansion that has not yet been approved. It sort of reminds me of eating a chocolate bar, whether you eat it all right now or one bite every hour. The end result is the same. It's gone or the goal is accomplished, end result is the same. Just from a citizens standpoint appears to me that this is just one step at a time that they are gradually going to ask for this -- this type of thing to be granted so that at some point they can say oh, but look, we have already spent all of this money and done all of this work, so we really need to have in expansion. That's just the way it looks to me much thank you.
>> thank you, joyce.
>> any questions for ms. Best? Staff's position is as to the pond b.f.i. Meets county requirements?
>> that's correct.
>> anything else from the court? Anybody else here on this item? Anything else from the court? Move that we approve the permit and the language recommended by staff, which is the last paragraph in the backup, that starts with the permittee acknowledges and ends with properties for the community and based on b.f.i.'s position here today and ongoing position, that -- that they will vacate this landfill by November 1 of 2015, which has been the position of a majority of this court for the last -- for the last at least three or four years. That motion is seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. Discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion. Show Commissioners Gomez, daughter, yours truly. Voting against Commissioner Davis and Commissioner equity hart. Commissioner -- commission Eckhardt. Thank you all very much.
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:
Tuesday, April 3, 2007, 9:34 PM