Travis County Commissioners Court
July 1, 2008
Item 6
6. Consider and take appropriate action on amendments to title 30, Travis County code, joint Travis County/city of Austin subdivision code for extraterritorial jurisdiction: a, critical water quality zone (buffer) on thecolorado river; b, public notification requirement and c, setting a public hearing on August 5, 2008.
>> hi, anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r.
>> hi, anna.
>> we are proposing code amendments to title 30. Two of them actually. One with regard to the colorado river buffer and one with regard to the public notice. The city contacted us regarding the colorado river buffer. The change in the buffer around the river, they have already adopted this regulation inside their corporate limits and they are looking -- they've asked us if we would consider amending title 30 so that it could be included in the e.t.j. As well. Essentially the way that the -- that the critical water quality zone is measured currently in the e.t.j. Out in the colorado river, it's from -- from the -- from the center line of the stream and the proposed change would have it be measured from -- from the ordinary high water mark either 200 or 400 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark. So right now essentially Texas tech zone is inside the -- essentially the zone is inside the river, inside the floodplain. That is somewhat of a -- it was kind of a kwan degree quandr them. One of the reasons this was adopted is to preserve the physical and ecological integrity and preserve recreational and economic values along the river. So essentially this is for water quality protection and river bank integrity. Since we have erosion issues along this river. They also state a benefit as being or it being a benefit to the riparian habitat, conducive to maintaining historic character and having potential recreation and trail opportunities along the river. There are a couple of things that -- that we've looked at. Some of our concerns were, well, what happens to the people that have existing sand and gravel operations in this area. Those would be grandfathered from the existing buffer zones. And people in this area are still impacted by the existing 100 year fema floodplain as they had before. 90% of the area in the expanded buffer or actually 91% is in the 100 year fema floodplain. And there is a variance process for property owners who this places an undue burden on. There is a possibility of there being an adverse impact on the county if we were to build new parks along the colorado river. Because there are certain uses such as parking that are not permitted in the critical water quality zone and so what we would recommend doing is just talking with the city and asking them to -- to amend the environmental section of the code and the environmental section of title 30 to allow for certain uses such as parking in the critical water quality zone on the colorado river if like for instance it's a -- it's another jurisdiction with a master plan park or something of that nature. And we have already started talking to the city about-- about our concerns there. But that is something that we would -- we are kind of recommending talking to them about.
>> specific example in that regard, we have been working with a lot of different agencies up and downtown colorado river kind of a -- kind of a concepts of a greenbelt. With points of access to -- to folks that could get to the river lunch a canoe or launch a kayak. For instance crossing right now is state highway 130. We would envision at some point having a boat ramp down to the colorado river to allow people to get in a small craft and then go on down. I think lcra calls it the colorado river trail. In part because they are using the waterway as a trail. So our concern in this ordinance is that we might not be allowed to put in a ramp in that critical water quality zone to provide recreational access to the river. So that's one of the concerns that we've expressed to the city on this.
>> the city pretty much was in agreement I guess, especially looking at parks, but also is -- anna let me ask you this question. There's another type of cleanup effort at the imperial valley south location where we're trying to get a lot of things cleaned up, an old dump in the area there, of course we have sold several parcels of property to persons in lieu of them cleaning it up. This stuff was only -- was on the tax roll, property on the tax roll. But anyway to make a long story short, what kind of impact is it going to have on that particular area because of the fact that this is a private setting more so than a public setting which we are looking at as a park. Of course, 250-foot from the shoreline of the colorado river would take it back significantly. I'm just wondering has anyone talked with the persons that are cleaning up that area to see what -- how it may impact them at all? I guess maybe the public hearing will suffice for that input. I don't really know. But amalia --
>> as long as what they have in the 200-foot buffer is recreational not buildings they are probably okay. We will contact them and let them know about the public hearing so they can make their own assessment of the impact.
>> I think they were basically looking at some of the use for the river city type of deal for canoe rides stuff with children. Things of that nature. But anyway I just wanted to make sure it was kind of consistent across the board if we are going to look at that buffer area from the colorado river shoreline not only for the parks but those persons that -- anyway, go ahead, I'm sorry.
>> to the extent that this impacts private property, why wouldn't it invoke the takings accident.
>> our attorney has done a takings analysis on this. We would be happy to share that. No the most part --
>> aren't we required bylaw to do a written takings report.
>> yes, sir.
>> do we plan to do that?
>> we have done that. I have that.
>> we have that. This property is already in the fema floodplain, so hence there isn't -- there isn't a take.
>> it -- I think there are various exceptions under the exap ter 2007 of the government code that this falls under. But we went ahead and did a takings impact assessment as allowed under 2007. You said 90% of this is in the fema floodplain.
>> 99 or --
>> 91% is already in the fema floodplain.
>> in essence, what we are really looking at is the full purpose annexation -- full purpose limits of the crawford limits of the city of Austin, the 250-foot buffer, the county's 250-foot buffer so there will be consistency in the unincorporated area and also the city of Austin corporate limits --
>> within the e.t.j.
>> within the e.t.j.
>> not beyond the e.t.j. At this point.
>> just e.t.j. Of the city of Austin.
>> right.
>> right.
>> basically what we are looking at here.
>> actually, it's 200 to 400 feet.
>> 200 to 400.
>> yeah.
>> what determines that then?
>> depending on the size of the area in the floodplain.
>> 200 to 400 feet from the shoreline.
>> you you.
>> I have a quick question. The backup said the city of Austin already adopted the proposed amendment inside the corporate limits. I'm wondering actually wondering about the wording of the exception that y'all have
>> [indiscernible] about improvements, facilitating recreational river access.
>> we -- we chose not to -- to actually embed that in the -- they wanted to proceed on with the amendment. And we said basically while we have reservations about -- about disallowing recreational use, we will defer that for the next round so we can get some regulation in place. Their concern is that in the absence of regulation permits will be filed and.
>> I see with an understanding that we will come back to discuss that exception at a later date.
>> that's correct.
>> I see.
>> move approval of a.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B?
>> this is an amendment proposal to title 30 that we would be making initiating and sending to the city of Austin as opposed to the last -- the colorado buffer which they sent our way. Preliminary plans or variances to final plats or site plans are filed. Currently in the title 30 in Austin in Austin's e.t.j., a notice sent to homeowners within 300 feet, registered environmental associations and people within 500 feet that register as interested parties. This notice doesn't really go into detail about if they are proposing a certain non-residential use. It just is very -- it's very compartment tallized, it might say commercial or industrial, but doesn't give you information as to what use is going to be on the property. And if the applicant is requesting a variance, public notification is sent to those people and -- and notice is placed in the newspaper. What we are proposing is that the city adopt the same public notification requirements in the e.t.j. That they have in the city of Austin. Corporate limits. Earlier this year they amended their public notification requirements inside the corporate limits, they extended it from 300 to 500 feet for -- for owners and they also -- they also included renters, they were getting -- they are getting the information from their utility data bases, and we think than a year would be good. It would be more inclusive. So -- so we also want them to -- to in the notice letters say much -- say get the same information much as we do with our non-res, non-residential notification, what you are going to do on the property. So we would like a requirement that -- that in the notice letters that go out to -- go out to citizens, it says what you are going to do on the property. And it -- additionally, we would like -- we would like -- we want to get title 30 updated to include the requirement for -- for placing a sign in the event that there's a plat replat -- a replat or a resubdivision or that there was a plat variance. We heard earlier this year some of our citizens almost didn't hear of a hearing because there wasn't a notice, a sign posted anymore. We were following the rules from title 30, but I don't think that it really served our citizens who were expecting a sign. So we would like to have that requirement back in the regulation.
>> well, let me ask this question. Anna. As far as notification, looking at what the city that done in its corporate limits from the
>> [indiscernible] as far as them changing that, the county -- if the court decides to do thats, go from 200 to 500 feet so we have consistency and also what will be -- what will be the -- the use of the -- land use of this particular notification, you mentioned that the -- that the utility -- using the utility bills would be one way -- would be the way to notify the persons within that range, within that buffer. So if that is the case, you know, we have -- we have sent out notification, we have kind of done things that way. Would the city pay for this particular notification as far as the title 30 joint type of deal or who is going to pay for that?
>> the -- the extending the notice -- the letters from 300 to 500 feet and including the representers -- renters.
>> in other words, renters data base. In other words utility data base.
>> well, we would certainly need to talk to the city about that. I would -- I don't think that there would be a cost associated with just adding the requirement to the letter that already goes out saying what it is that you are going to do on the property. But that is something that we will need to visit with the city about. Additional costs of increased notification.
>> definitely, in some of the regards, we have seen it consistently done, persons within that range sometimes they are renters, they are not actually homeowners, so they have no knowledge according to what we have heard at the -- that the residents really have no knowledge of what's going on, especially those that are renting. Maybe occupation the utility data base -- using the utility data base would be more accurate in finding out who those folks are so they can be notified. I don't have any problem with that but --
>> is it true that in b we're asking the city to adopt the county's title 30 public notification?
>> we're asking the city to amend title 30 with these following items to be included into the existing title 30.
>> some of which is similar to what we use in notice for the unincorporated areas.
>> right, exactly.
>> we discussed it with the city already?
>> we have had some discussions with the city.
>> I guess my question then would be why is the Commissioners court asked to act on this, if we want the city council basically to approve it for the city.
>> well, what happens is we adopted the rule, but we only have sole jurisdiction outside the e.t.j. So we adopted the rules for that. But most of the occurrences that we've had here at court are within the e.t.j. The only way that you can effect this type of notice is if both the city and county amend title 30. So we know it's the intent of the Commissioners court to have the same notice within the e.t.j. Because that's what happened in
>> [indiscernible] that's clearly in the e.t.j. But we can't do that until the city also agrees to this notification provision. So I think -- in other words the county wants something different. We want notification for a non-residential uses that come in. We have to have the city to cooperate to make that happen.
>> so -- so if the Commissioners court approves b, and it makes sense to me, how do we communicate that to the city?
>> we already have. In other words, that is we're taking --
>> move approval of b then.
>> well wait.
>> the --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we need a document where we set forth.
>> if I can clarify under our 1445 agreements with the city of Austin, if one party wants to make an amendment to title 30, I would guess that they would go through whatever process they would need to so that we can formally send the letter, a letter or I'm sorry send the city a letter stating, you know, we want to amend this section of code and attach how we would want to amend the code and then -- then in this case the city would get to look at that and -- and, you know, consider whether or not they were interested in that amendment or not. Much the same way as we're reviewing the colorado river buffer now.
>> is everything in your backup memo part of our -- part of our notification requirement today.
>> outside chapter 82, outside of the city of Austin's e.t.j., we do have -- e.t.j., we do have signs in the non-residential notification, we do it somewhat differently at the county, but the important part is in the letters that go out, we say what is going to happen on the property not just, you know, what land use -- let them insert some broad category so it's consistent.
>> is the answer to my question yes or no?
>> that's a yes.
>> the reason that I ask the question it seems to me that we need a document that clearly sets forth what we are asking the city to do. Quo r we need to confirm for ourselves that we do all of that now. Our desire is that the city and county do the same -- do the same public notification, right?
>> it would be the single office. In other words altogether. The single office will notice the properties within the e.t.j. So we -- we have a subdivision of labor in the certain part of town the county will do it, another part of town the city will do it, all reading off the same set of rules in the notification and e.t.j.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] .
>> that's a new provision, that is in our code that applies to the unincorporated area outside the etj, but what we're trying to do now is affect it throughout the entire inuncorp rated area by amending title 30 which is our common code with the city of Austin. So both entities, the city and the county, both have to adopt this rule if we want to make an effective etj. This is the rule we're bringing under b today.
>> this is not a rule right here. This is back up and good narrative this makes references to stuff we've done in the past we thought was beneficial and that is the only point I'm making. Seems to me if we need to rule on an official document we can bless we know you are going to the city to discuss it.
>> and the final action can't be taken until after public hearings.
>> so the court, we still got to do a public hearing. The court has its --
>> I don't know if --
>> this is it right here.
>> that's it.
>> and the back up just a narrative of the strike outs and the amendments that are, that are proposed in the rule change?
>> yes. This is a legislative version, it show what is we would propose to add and what things we would propose to change.
>> all right, so we bless this, you take it to the city, and if they approve it, final action has been taken by both?
>> we still, what we're asking the court to do is post public, a public hearing first. We still have a 30-day period where we need to post a hearing.
>> on this, on the draft?
>> right. After the public hearing the Commissioner's court adopt it is and at some point the city council holds their own public hearing and adopt it is, and then it would be final.
>> is this my copy or yours?
>> that's your copy.
>> three or four days in advance under the Commissioner's court back-up policy.
>> I'm sorry.
>> we'll move approval of b and c.
>> moved.
>> we have a motion.
>> commission ergo mess.
>> and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by a unanimous vote.
>> I move to approve b and she seconded that.
>> move approval of c. All in favor? That passes by a unanimous vote.
>> thank you all.
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, July 1, 2008 1:51 PM