Travis County Commissioners Court
November 24, 2009,
Item 5
Item 5, consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, applications for site development permits for t.x.i.
hornsby bend east and t.x.i.
hornsby bend west mining sites.
permit applications numbers 08-2430 and 08-2431, respectively.
and b is roadway improvement agreement with t.x.i.
operations l.p.
we do have residents who have come down on this item.
i suggest that we have staff kind of lay this out to make sure we understand exactly where we are.
then I guess if there are representatives from t.x.i., make sure if they have additional comments to make especially so we will know the status of the project today, we'll take that.
then we'll listen to residents.
and I guess my question is, I was told yesterday afternoon that the county had requested additional information last Friday and yesterday morning, and t.x.i.
representatives were not sure they would be able to get that information by today.
so are we still waiting on that information?
>> yes, sir.
anna and theresa, Travis County t.n.r.
there remains three outstanding items that we are working on.
>> okay.
>> so if you would like, I could give you a project summary and then theresa will discuss briefly what in our codes we reviewed this for.
>> please do.
>> okay.
>> can I just say one other thing.
for citizens comments, what we do basically is just tell residents if they would like to address the court on this matter, to come forward.
and there are -- there will probably be five seats available at that point.
so it's kind of informal.
residents being able to come forward.
the three-minute rule does not apply to this item.
three minutes is the limit during citizens communication.
which we took early this morning.
so your time is unlimited, however, we do ask that you be respectful of the others who have come down to give comments also.
and the other thing sometimes it helps us to hear things twice.
i'm not sure it helps us to hear the same thing five or six times.
if we would keep that in mind, it would be helpful.
the other thing, we did ask staff to provide summaries of comments provided as hearings conducted by t.x.i.
taken hearing conducted by Commissioner Davis at the eastside service center, so the court does have those summaries that staff provided.
>> yes, sir.
t.x.i.
industries -- or Texas industries, known as t.x.i., applied for site development permits for sand and gravel operations on approximately 1900 acres located on each side of dunlap road south of fm 969.
the site has a common boundary with an existing sand and gravel operation on fm 969 near webberville that was recently purchased by t.x.i.
to be utilized for processing the materials from the subject sand and gravel mining site.
and you can see those are depicted on the map.
>> can anyone just for the public, and I think it's really important for the public to see what we're talking about, I know they hear what we're talking about, but they need to see what we're talking about.
anybody that can point to the specifics of where are we talking about on your map as far as the site, the boundaries and get a mic so they can hear you.
so folks can actually see what we're talking about, see where we are.
>> it should be on already.
>> is that working?
that will be good.
thank you.
>> the t.x.i.
permit applications are actually brought in as two separate applications.
one for a t.x.i.
hornsby bend west nining site, which is actually located here and it backs up off of dunlap road, which actually connects to fm 969.
the proposed access -- this particular site at two driveway locations on dunlap road, one north of elm creek and one south of elm creek, so there would actually be two driveways accessing dunlap from the west mining site.
the east site is across dunlap and they do propose one driveway where truck traffic would access the east mining site.
materials that are mined from both sites would be trucked up 969 to an existing facility and that is already active in processing these kinds of materials.
so the two facilities that are the subject of the permit applications would be the west mining site and the east mining site.
is there any other information I can provide on that?
>> no, I just wanted to make sure that the folks who is viewing this have a chance to look and see exactly the vicinity that you are referring to as you go through your presentation.
>> okay.
>> can I just speak out?
>> well, why don't we follow the judge's directions.
staff, why don't you finish what you've got.
>> okay.
of the 100 -- or 1,973 total acre site, 1,289 acres are proposed to be mined in multiple phases.
once a phase is completed, it is proposed that it will be backfilled with the overburden, the topsoil materials, from the next phase and revegetated.
the land reclamation will be ongoing during the active mining process and the intent is return to land to an agricultural use or prepare for future subdivision development.
the duration of the project is supposed to be 10 to 15 years, however, the rate of mining would be dictated by the market demand for the materials.
this application is subject to Travis County's chapter 64 and chapter 82 regulations.
staff has scrutinized potential transportation, water quality and flood plain along with environmental issues that may result from a part of this proposed mining operation.
county staff is also investigating potential nuisance issues at the proposed mine for the neighboring community.
this includes t.x.i.'s plans for dealing with dust and noise of their operation.
initially conveyor belts are included in the site plan application, but during the course of the review, the conveyor belts have been removed.
the proposed project is located within the city of Austin's e.t.j.
and the city of Austin is also reviewing an application for the site develop permits under the city of Austin's title 25 regulations.
as the judge had mentioned earlier, there have been four public meetings on this, three of which were held by t.x.i., and those were may -- the evenings of may 12th, may 13th and may 14th.
and in addition, Commissioner Davis held a community meeting on September 29 to listen to concerns raised by citizens who live near the property.
during the course of those meetings, several different types of concerns were raised.
concerns regarding the mine's impact on surface water and water quality, on ground water effects of nearby wells, the transportation -- safety of the transportation network, especially in regard to children walking to adjacent school sites.
concerns were raised about flood plain, whether or not a mining operation would have an adverse impact and cause a greater risk of flooding for the area.
citizens did raise concerns about air quality and dust.
and also about if the roads would become unsafe based on mud on the roads after rains.
there was many citizens raised concerns regarding noise and the decibel levels during the mining operations.
there were also concerns about things like dark skies.
constituents move out in the country to be away from the city lights and concerns were raised that they would be -- that their enjoyment of dark skies would be eliminated once the mining operation commenced.
there were also concerns raised about the historic elements that are unique to this area and that they would be destroyed during mining operations as long as in addition concerns were raised about the natural beauty and the wildlife that are present in this area.
with the mining operation having a negative impact and destroying that.
there were also questions about the act of reclamation.
whether -- questions were raised about, well, what happens if the project stops before the reclamation and what will the future use be of this.
you know, people wondered if it would be a landfill athletic field or used for new subdivisions.
then additionally there were questions raised about the mining operations and the safety of the mine operations.
everything from people being concerned that their children would be unsafe and be able to get into the mining pits, and also things such as what method would be used to extract the materials, how far down a property line the mining operations work conducted, what would be the hours of operation, duration of mining, size of the pits, fencing, berms.
there were a lot of questions raised about the mining operations.
also questions came up about wondering what was t.x.i.'s operating area and what would people that live adjacent to current t.x.i.
facilities have to say about being their neighbors.
and the final two concerns that I speak -- or that I'm telling you that were raised in the meetings were health.
you know, do mining operations have an impact, negative impact on health including cause cancer and what the impact to the property values, neighborhood viability, how those things are impacted by a mining operation.
i'm going to let theresa talk about what things we did, what things we can review for under chapter 64 and chapter 82, and she will briefly discuss the outstanding items that we still have on this project.
>> okay.
>> I'm theresa calkins with Travis County t.n.r.
as anna mentioned, we do review this application under our chapter 64 flood plain regulations and our chapter 82 development regulations.
and the issues that we review for can basically be categorized under two broad categories, which would be drainage as well as roadway and transportation issues.
this project is located in both city of Austin two-mile e.t.j.
and five-mile e.t.j.
and as anna mentioned it's also being reviewed for permit by city of Austin under city of Austin regulations.
under our regulations, we do review for drainage, and that would include as for any site plan, it would include the effect to peak storm water runoff during the designed storms that are included in our regulation, the 2, 10, 25 and 100-year storm.
we look to see that projects aren't going to increase those peak storm water flows across property boundaries that would affect other off set property or off set right-of-way.
in this particular case, the proposal is basically to mine the sand and gravel materials that are adjacent to the colorado river and other rivers in the area.
there are some offices proposed and some internal roads, but the impervious cover of the proposed improvements is very low and we do anticipate that the mining pits where these materials are going to be removed would actually provide additional storm for runoff, so we would expect not to see an increase in storm water runoff but more likely a decrease in storm water runoff.
we do look to see that easements are provided, drainage easements are provided that contain both fema, 100-year flood plain as well as a calculated fully developed conditions 100-year flood plain.
and that would be true for this case just like any other site development permit.
we look for erosion and sedimentation control plan to both minimize the erosion that occurs on a site as well as prevent the transport of sedimentation off site.
we also look to see that they are meeting their state requirements for tpdes, the storm water requirements that tceq actually requires that they meet.
in addition to the drainage review, we also look at roadway and transportation issues.
in this proposal, t.x.i.
does plan to excavate sand and gravel materials and actually haul these by trucks to their existing webberville processing site, and that would include hauling trucks up ben lap road, down fm 969 to that existing facility.
because of the proposed extensive use of dunlap road as well as the txdot roadway with these truck -- trucks and other vehicles, we did request that t.x.i.
provide a traffic study to evaluate the impact to the roadways.
and they did.
they provided information from their transportation consultant that identified that certain improvements would be necessary in particular at the fm 969, that to accommodate these trucks and large vehicles.
and those intersection improvements include a right turn lane that's reconstructed at dunlap road at 969 that would accommodate these large vehicles, as well as a dedicated left turn to get from fm 969 on to dunlap road as well as a continuous through lane on fm 969.
in addition other improvements were identified at fm 969 and taylor lane and at fm 969 and burleson manor.
however, the difference would be at taylor lane, those improvements were identified to be needed prior to any mining commencing on the site.
whereas the improvements on the txdot roadway at taylor lane and burleson and manor may be phased in later as activities increase at the site as well as while background traffic increases.
in addition, Travis County t.n.r.
identified that roadway improvements would be needed on dunlap road from the driveway at these mining sites all the way to fm 969 to accommodate truck traffic.
those improvements would include widening the roadway to allow for two 12-foot lanes and improve shoulder as well as constructing the roadway to provide enough support for these heavy vehicles.
in addition to the roadways, the facility is also required to design and construct their driveway connections to our roadways in a manner that would accommodate the large truck traffic.
and as anna also mentioned, we do have three items remaining that are yet to be resolved regarding the permit application review, and those are, number 1 on the drainage easements, containing the fema flood plain.
we've come to an agreement on the aerial extent where these drainage improvements, the area that the drainage improvements cover.
we're still working out specific language and primarily as it relates I believe to fences.
we're very close to resolving the issues on the drainage easements and I expect that to be resolved fairly shortly.
the other outstanding issue would be regarding the roadway improvements.
t.x.i.
has agreed in principle to the roadway improvements that are needed on dunlap road and the improvements that are needed for intersections along fm 969.
we're still talking about the specific language to achieve those roadway improvements.
and a third item is the driveway configuration.
they have provided a driveway design, but it actually needs to work with the reconstructed section of dunlap road to actually provide a workable driveway, and that section has yet to be designed.
so at this point in time, we're not recommending approval of the permits pending the resolution of these three final remaining issues.
>> when do we think those three issues might be resolved?
or do we know?
>> you know, I do not know.
i would imagine that they could be resolved relatively quickly.
it's just going to be a matter of getting together and reaching agreement.
>> so there is no recommendation from staff today.
>> no.
i would propose that once we've reached resolution that we put this back on the agenda and go from there.
>> okay.
any reps here from t.x.i.?
who would like to make comments that -- about issues that staff did not cover?
mr.
reeferseed, we will ask for residents in just a moment.
and so you won't have a fair shot if you would go back to your seat, we have other residents who have come down to give comments today.
when we make that announcement, we will ask staff to vacate five of those seats, maybe one of you to remain there.
we would like for you to return to your chair, please.
any additional comments that we need to hear?
from t.x.i.
reps?
>> judge and Commissioners, henry gilmore representing t.x.i.
and anna and theresa have summarized where we are.
we are down to a handful of issues.
first of all, I want to commend your staff for making themselves available to clear comments.
we did our best to be ready by today.
we thought we could be, but there were some late issues that came up that we have to figure out whether it can work for us or whether there is something else that we can propose that would still work.
i don't think that it would take very long.
i'm thinking we would be ready to go probably in a couple of weeks.
but we would rather have it buttoned up and then bring it before y'all instead of having these loose ends.
and so that's our plan is to go visit with staff, work out those remaining issues and bring it back forward to you.
>> am I hearing staff say that if these three issues are resolved, they will meet county requirements?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
there -- we did hear you mention a long list of concerns that residents have, and we have looked at those and our conclusions have been?
>> the concern -- or we -- during our review, we reviewed for the elements that are present in chapter 64 and chapter 82, as theresa mentioned.
that being said, if we heard a concern, even if it wasn't supported by our regulation, we did pass it on.
we did ask questions that go beyond the scope of our regulations.
some of the -- some of the concerns, you know, have been discussed and we have -- we understand -- some of the concerns have been discussed and we understand, you know, what -- we understand what the mining operation, what t.x.i.'s response to them would be.
some of them just are not supported by our code that we can't require the applicant to do certain things because it's not in our code.
>> so what's t.x.i.'s response to complaints about adverse impact on water quality?
>> the -- my name is stephan england, with t.x.i.
operations, l.p.
and a series of questions were asked with regard to who regulates water quality and the environmental representatives of t.x.i.
have discussed those and with staff to ensure that the quality of water would be protected.
>> [laughter]
>> what about safety?
what about safety?
>> t.x.i.'s mining operations are under the auspices of imsha and those safety regulations are extensive and those were provided to staff for review as well.
>> did you identify yourself?
judge, I didn't hear.
>> my name is stephan england and I'm with t.x.i.
operations.
>> adverse health impact?
>> again, those items of concern are all regulated and those responses have all been provided to staff for review.
>> any questions from the court?
of t.x.i.
reps?
before we hear from residents.
>> I have one question in regard to -- I have a question with regard to the adequacy of the reclamation.
what standard do you expect to restore the land to post-mining?
>> the reclamation plans will be a part of the presentation, but we have rather strict requirements from the city and county with regard to slope stabilization.
the intended after mine uses will be returned to agricultural or open space.
>> the requirements of tceq or above the standards set by tceq?
>> the stands I'm unfamiliar with what tceq's standards of reclamations would be, but the -- the agricultural uses are considered a higher use.
and the standards for operating equipment safely in these areas actually is greater than the city or county standards for slopes and reclamation.
so in order to operate our equipment safely, our slopes are proposed to be less than those of the requirements.
>> it appears there will be heavy trucks using dunlap road coming in and out dealing with your particular operation.
can you tell me the size of those trucks weight-wise?
how large are those trucks?
>> Commissioner, I'm sorry, I cannot.
i know that they are about 50 -- 52-foot long is the wheelbase that I was given, and the standard road weight limits are observed.
>> so you don't -- you just don't have that information available.
>> that's correct.
>> but they are pretty large trucks.
>> they are semi size.
>> okay.
all right.
and I guess hearing that, staff in this particular study I guess done as far as vehicles and traffic per day as far as the volume of traffic that will be end up using it especially with these trucks, did you project the number of trips a day with these heavy volume trucks that would be made during the operational phase of your activity there?
>> t.x.i.
-- our roadway consultant did make projections.
>> what are they?
>> I would have to look --
>> [inaudible]
>> [multiple voices]
>> the total number is 710 trips per day.
>> oh, come on!.
>> with 18-wheelers.
>> can we -- can we keep it --
>> [multiple voices]
>> and I goods there was concern that I think staff had just raised a little bit ago about some historical significance.
i don't know how you will address it as far as the hornsby bend cemetery was brought to my attention, and, of course, I'm just relaying it to you how we are going to deal with the hornsby bend cemetery significance.
that's there and present.
so have you given that any consideration?
>> Commissioner, under state law, we couldn't mess with the cemetery if we wanted to without going to court, and those -- that cemetery is outside our limits of construction.
>> it is outside the limits?
>> yes.
>> okay.
and another question that had come up as far as the noise, and I notice staff, as far as looking at the noise, the decibels as far as noise because from what I understand it will be basically I guess similar to a 24-hour operation.
and if that is the case, then as far as the decibel noise, which is not regulated by us, I guess, but could you tell me who so the folks will know who actually deals with noise regulations?
>> you are correct, Commissioner, we actually don't have any noise regulations in our chapter 82 regulations.
the -- my understanding is that at this mining site, the noise levels would be regulated by msha.
>> okay.
>> I guess staff -- judge, I know the citizens -- I have several questions, but I think the citizens have come here to speak.
>> I think we ought to hear them.
>> Commissioner Huber has a couple questions.
>> this maybe be in the volume of material that we have, but what is the anticipated depth of the mining operation?
>> that depth is variable.
at the deepest place it's approximately 40 feet, and it's up to about 20-foot in depth.
>> okay.
20 to 40 feet.
okay, and then on the ground water impacts under that category, the statement is in our backup that says a map has been provided with all located wells within a quarter of a mile of the sites that have been found to be registered with the state, tceq.
i happen to know from our west Travis County experience that many old wells are not registered with tceq.
has there been any attempt to identify wells within the approximate vicinity of this site that are not registered with tceq?
>> yes, there have been, and they continue to be investigated.
>> who is responsible -- this may be a staff question.
who is responsible for the maintenance of 969?
>> txdot.
>> txdot.
does this go through any process with them as far as --
>> it does.
in fact, txdot is currently reviewing the same traffic impact study that t.x.i.
provided.
>> did you come up to answer a question?
>> I'm general manager of operations for our sand and gravel sites and if there were any questions, I was going to be available.
>> let's leave one staff member there and if we can make the other five chairs available.
those who come down to comment on this item today are welcome to come forth.
and if you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
now, as one finishes, if you would return to your seat, we can get another resident up to give comments.
so let's start to my left here and work our way across.
yes.
>> my name is scray net kincaid, I live in chap reliable water crossing which is engulfed by the west and east side of this mining operation.
you can see it directly across from our house.
and I have spoken to you before about the health implications of this.
and it seems to me when t.x.i.
speaks, it's very, very down played because there is research done on communities next to open pit gravel mines as lung cancer, 50% increase and the reason being is because the dust particles are so fine they settle in the alvioli of the lungs and permanently damage that tissue.
so it's not just a nuisance.
it's going to affect the health of my daughter, of every child there.
not to mention mention I already have as m to say that it's going to be regulated, that's not true because there are no federal regulations on gravel mines.
so if you allow this to go forward, we are not going to be able to sell our homes and relocate to a more appropriate area to raise a child where they are going to be health I because no one is going to buy a home next to a gravel mine.
it's -- you wouldn't allow -- if it were your home and your children and you were facing these things and you knew there was a 50% chance of your child becoming ill with asthma or lung cancer, you would do everything in your power to stop this.
most don't do this to our children and our families.
>> [applause]
>> thank you.
>> my name is judy halldon.
i am finding t.x.i.
to be very deceptive.
they said that the cemetery is not located on their mining site.
the hunter cemetery, which they are calling the hornsby which it's not, the hunter cemetery is not located on their mining site.
the gilleland cemetery is.
mr.
james gilleland's daughter is buried there, his granddaughter, a couple of other gilleland people, and there may be graves outside the perimeter of the cemetery.
we don't know.
the land has been plowed, but it hasn't been dug up.
they start digging, they may be digging up caskets.
who knows.
but they said there wasn't a cemetery, and there is.
>> take your mic with you.
>> there is a cemetery -- here's dunlap.
right about where that t is or that e is, okay?
the gilleland cemetery.
it's hard to see because it's under some trees, but there are tombstones.
the other thing that I heard them say that bothered me was that they -- they had attempted to locate wells within what, a quarter of a mile.
we have three wells.
nobody has talked to us.
the wimberleys have got -- or anybody here, they haven't contacted us and asked us how many wells we have.
now they know and that's fine, but the wimberleys, who have 800 acres of irrigated pecan trees, I don't know how many wells they have.
20?
but they said oh, yes, they have made an attempt.
they have not made any sort of attempt at all.
>> do you know the depth of your wells?
>> about 20 feet.
they are all shallow wells.
the third thing I want to talk about for just a minute is the quality of the soil.
it is sandy loam, deep, 20-foot deep, 15 soil.
no rocks.
you could grow anything out there.
it would be a great place to put up some of these little community gardens, for instance.
and 2,000 acres of probably the finest soil in this county.
and that's all.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> [applause] sir.
you.
your turn.
yes, sir.
we're going to the right and then we'll come across.
>> thank you, first of all.
>> your name sue in a .
>> nathaniel booker.
three things they brought up.
flood plains.
no one has brought up the fact pretty soon they are going to have sinkholes that cars are going to be dropping in and houses because of the type sole we have out there.
that soil goes a lot deeper than 20 feet.
and it's nothing but sand.
the other thing is roadway improvement.
i met with the superintendent of schools for del valle independent school district and he's very concerned of the dangers of that highway.
and now you want to put more cars on that road, more trucks on that road.
that is already one of the most dangerous highways in this county.
the other thing I want to talk about is driveway configuration.
they have no idea what they are talking about because they don't come out to see what's going on.
so I'm going to ask you to please hold their feet to the fire because we are tired of being the dumping ground for Travis County.
>> [applause] it's time for you to wake up and realize.
>> [applause] now, I want to say something else and I don't want to offend anyone, but people talk about cemeteries.
let's talk about the living.
we are growing -- that community out there has grown so much that we have people out there that can't even get out for an hour when they try to drive out in the morning.
so -- if you want to take carat living, it's your jobs.
the children out there are going to be in bad shape if you do this.
there's going to be a lot of things.
i want to be cutting this short because this is very critical.
please take care of that area, which is one of the most beautiful areas in Travis County.
and one of the most neglected.
please do not allow them to go through with this.
t.x.i.
is not protecting us.
tceq is not kindergarten care -g care of us so it's up to you.
>> [applause]
>> thank you.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> my name is lawana napier and I'm a new resident of chap reliable water crossing.
and I really want to say that I am completely out of the realm of my expertise.
i am no a geologist or anything like that.
i'm just a concerned citizen, and I want to speak from my personal perspective.
i don't have a whole lot of information other than what I live every day in that neighborhood, and with the thought of adding a project like t.x.i., it's really frightening to me the possibilities of things that could happen to us as residents living in that area.
i was on my way home a Friday and I still don't know what happened on 969, but it took me about, I don't know, two or three hours to get home because there's only one way in to that area.
and I was sitting there thinking about this particular meeting, and my need to tell you how dangerous that is.
if someone was sick, if there was a fire, if an ambulance or anything needed to get in there, whoever was in there needing some emergency help would really, really be in a bad shape.
there's only one way in and one way out and I'm thinking that if we were doing anything, it would be thinking about improving the access to the area instead of decreasing access to the area.
my backyard is -- lines up to the back of this main project site.
and when I heard the lady describe how they were going to widen the roads, you have to live there to absolutely understand how narrow, how dangerous, and I drive out of there every single day.
and I have to almost drive in the grass just for a regular car to pass me on that road, and then when you turn out of dunlap on to 969, that's an extremely dangerous thoroughfare right there.
i pray every day that it's not too slick, it's not too foggy, it's not too whatever for me just to get out on the main road.
my other option is to go around the other way and wait for an hour to just pass through the traffic lights.
so if you add 710 trips of extremely large vehicles in there, can you imagine the increase in danger to the residents of that particular area?
that concerns me.
i had like three things.
i'm going to do it really fast.
and I talked about two and another lady mentioned this too.
i'm 51 years old and I just bought my first home.
and when I was told that this project was going to pretty much snatch my dream, and right in my backyard.
i'll talking about it's right on me.
when I walk on the of the door, it's in my backyard.
that this project is going to snatch my dream, ruin my investment, I was -- I was extremely heart broken by that.
i'm telling you that I'm asking this council, the Commissioners court to please, please consider the human element and the environmental element that are involved in the ratification or the approval of this permit.
you know, there's people's lives that are at stake.
their children, there's elderly, there's human life and environment.
environmental issues that have gone on out there.
and I'm hoping that you don't exchange that human value for just a dollar.
you know, because I feel like there's other ways -- if we had a grocery store on or some other kind of businesses in our neighborhood, it could generate the same kinds of money that t.x.i.
is going to generate.
so I'm just hoping and praying that you consider all the human elements that are involved and the things that could be lost with the approval of this project.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> [applause]
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
my name is richard franklin.
and it appears that we're back here again every six to nine months, the Travis County residents, east Travis County are back in front of you asking you to help us to stop something that affects our quality of life.
every six to nine months we're back here telling you to stop dumping on us, we don't have the resources to fight against big business and we're back here again.
i was given this letter because I have things written down, but I think this is fairly succinct.
some questions I ask to you consider before you let t.x.i.
have their way with this proposed permit and the property.
why Commissioners are letting -- that was the beginnings of Austin in the land grant to stephen f.
austin and the beginnings of the capital of Texas and desecrate an historical family cemetery to boot by letting this baffle pit be built -- gravel pit be built.
have any of you driven down 973 or 969 to highway 71 and seen the awful landscapes on both sides of the road, which they also said they were going to reclaim and we see what that turned out to be.
or taken the toll road from 71 to 969 and seeing the awful pits on the colorado rivers that supposedly were going to be put back as the land pits were built.
would you want this to be built in your backyard?
which is what's going to happen to numerous residents in Austin's colony, chap reliable water crossing and both these two subdivisions.
how do you feel about letting this be built in close proximity to an elementary school and a middle school.
appear there's another elementary school coming in.
we can look on that map right there and the mining sites are actually closer -- I mean the size of those things are closer to that than they are each other.
they are right there where the schools are.
it's ridiculous.
we've got kids all over those neighborhoods that are going to be playing.
you've got to consider these kids if nothing else.
and the letter goes on to say the Commissioners are being blindsided by t.x.i.
there are several issues on the table that you've been asked about, but I believe there are certain members of Commissioners court who are wined and dined, we just know something is not right and we don't know why we're not being considered.
the tax dollars are huge, but at what cost to our environment, our safety and security and the value of our homes.
eastern Travis County is a progressive area like the western parts of Travis County.
which means no invasive businesses like t.x.i.
that would hurt the growth potential of the area.
this area has grown greatly, but it needs to be preserved for businesses other than gravel pits.
lime pits, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
eastern Travis County was and still is the dumping ground for undesirable businesses including Austin's potential waste disposal facility.
i implore you not to give t.x.i.
the permit.
it goes begins all that is good for eastern Travis County and its residents.
i would also like to add, do the lives of residents of eastern Travis County have the same value as those in western Travis County?
i implore you again to join us in the opposition to this expansion and the assault on our quality of life.
our children will thank you and history will look favorably upon you.
thank you.
>> [applause]
>> thank you.
yes, sir.
>> my name is charlie dobbins, I'm a resident of chap chapperalcrossing.
i'm a resident of united states, Texas, born and raised, vietnam veteran, and to top it off with a good smooth part I have cancer coming out of my ear from every which way.
it was hereditary.
i have had three operations and I'm waiting on a fourth one and they say that it's caused from stuff that I've received when I was a kid and handed down through generations, but my moving out to this part of the country, my doctors at the v.a.
and in temple and waco here, they thought it was a very good move to move out here because it has an environment that helps me a lot.
i'm not sure I'm going to make it out of this next operation totally completing, you know, but this is not -- they feel this site out here and these films, it's been proven they are working is going to involve me anymore and I have kids coming up.
i'm not going to get rid of it.
i'll die with it, but I will not give it up.
this is my first ohm ever in 61 years.
61 years I've never come to anything closer.
like the lady said, to have my dreams taken away from me, it hurts.
it hurts.
and you can't bypass it.
and the kids and stuff out there.
they come to me like magnets and this is what I'm looking out for.
my grandkids and their kids coming up.
and they are going to inherit this because I'm not going to sell it.
it will never be sold.
it will go down generation through generation.
why come out of the pot into the skill let, you know?
that's all have I to say.
i want to say I wish you would take under consideration and really think about it.
if it's not done in the consideration alone is enough to make me say thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
applause.
>> I am miss carla bright with raytx homes and I sell all the new homes in chapperal crossing.
and I sell 95% to first time home buyers who are trying to live the american dream.
we got charlie out of a one bedroom effeciency partner and he is now a homeowner for 75 bucks more than he was a renter.
>> praise god, praise god.
>> this project is completely surrounding my neighborhood and Austin's colony.
we sold 100 houses last year.
we're one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Austin, this close to Austin, only 11 miles away.
we've got 400 more to go.
in our neighborhood next door at Austin's colony, we've got 600 more homes to sell and build.
that's 1,000 families.
in our new sales agreements, we have to put in a disclosure that t.x.i.
is proposing what I call to be a nuclear holocaust next door.
would you buy a home next to that?
any of you?
i've lost several deals already and they haven't even gotten approval.
and this is not just a neighborhood that I sell homes in.
this is a family.
we're naming the park after charlie.
everybody knows one another.
have you ever driven by an 18-wheeler?
now, we're talking about noise.
everybody has driven next to an 18-wheeler.
how about 710 18-wheelers down a country road?
that's what dunlap is.
it is a country road.
have any of you looked at their project on 973, reclamation my ass.
they did not do anything over there.
they dug the pit, it looks like a nuclear about how many exploded without the bodies.
you built this gorgeous 45 toll road that know everybody in Austin gets to see the crap from above.
it's ridiculous.
that highway is dangerous.
and that's exactly what y'all are going to do to us now.
i don't understand.
letting something like t.x.i.
come in when you've let us build 1,000 proposed houses, to me, and let them do this kind of project, to destroy all the property values is a form of discrimination, in my opinion.
if your lower income and you are in east Austin and you want to do a project that's going to destroy the property values and make everybody's life miserable and give you cancer, just come to east Austin.
you're approved.
i mean you guys have the power to stop this.
and mr.
davis, when you had your meeting and you said oh, I'm opposed, I'm opposed, but I can't do anything, you guys got to figure out something to do.
there are thousands of residents out there that are trying to improve their quality of life, and this will destroy it.
it's really unimaginable.
if this land were around west lake or tarrytown or Lakeway with a whole bunch of money and a whole bunch of lawyers, it wouldn't even be considered.
we wouldn't even be talking about it.
so I thank you for letting me talk to you guys and all the things that t.x.i.
has said, like hey, we're going to do this conveyor belt so there's no increased truck traffic what.
the hell happened to the conveyor belt?
that's gone.
now we've got 710 semis rolling down a country road.
everything that they said in all their meetings, and they spread their meetings up into three days of time so all the people wouldn't come at the same time so it looked like there weren't a bunch of people mad.
everybody is mad.
nobody wants this done.
i mean the lady said earlier don't sell out for the buck.
these people's lives are at stake here.
their home, their property values, their dreams.
thank you.
>> [applause]
>> thank you.
you are next.
>> she has to go back to work but I'll go ahead.
i'm sorry.
>> well, if she's got to leave.
>> [inaudible].
>> doesn't bother me.
if you want to go next, it's fine with me.
>> my name is kerry hamrick.
i moved here from just outside of washington, d.c.
i wanted to buy my own home and the prices had gotten so incredible that I basically had to move and I didn't -- or when I bought a house, I didn't want on two-hour commute back and forth to work.
so I moved to Texas.
when I started telling people I was going to buy a house east of Austin, people started asking what are you thinking?
i just figured I would buy into the country, wait 10 years, I use the Travis County first time home buyers program that I was able to qualify at that time, and so I bought a house thinking I would be there for 10 years and I would be able to fix the home up.
the area would grow and I would eventually be able to sell my house and if this comes in, my house will be absolutely worthless.
nobody is going to buy a house next to a gravel pit.
so there's no ifs, ands or buts here, no resident out there wants t.x.i.
there.
there is just -- I don't care what sort of spin they try to put out.
talking to them you would think there will be filed of bluebonnets out there in 20 years.
secondly, for somehow, I'm not sure, but when I went to the meeting at the hilton hotel, it was actually going to be 60 feet deep.
now it's only 40.
somehow 20 feet have gotten lost somewhere.
30 feet they are going to dig up and leave mountains next to these pits, and then they take 30 feet below that, which is the gravel and leave these pits here.
i just want to ask have any of you been out there where wee live to see the pecan plantation, the beautiful feeds that are out there.
at nice, it's dark, you can see the stars.
it's peaceful.
it's beautiful.
they will destroy our quality of life.
first of all, they say, well, we're going to reclaim, you know, according to our standards.
what are their standards?
what are their standards in the state of Texas?
anybody driving anywhere where t.x.i.
has been can see what their standards are.
there are trees growing on the mounds where they have dug.
just drive down 130, drive down 973.
they will destroy the area.
also, there were supposed to be I think seven phases, if I remember correctly, two years each.
we're talking at least 14 years before they are even done.
and how many times have t.x.i.
kept to their agreements as far as their time lines.
we're talking at least 20 years.
there's not going to be any bluebonnets out there.
they are going to destroy that property.
they are going to destroy the pecan plantation that's out there.
they are going to destroy our way of life.
our houses will be absolutely worthless within -- within a couple years.
as soon as they come in, nobody is going to want to buy a house there.
nobody is going to want to buy a house there in 10 to 15 years because right now a lot of us bought our first homes there expecting growth.
we're expecting grocery stores.
i have to drive like 20 miles to get to the grocery store.
there's nothing there.
we built in the hopes of -- or we bought in the hopes of our quality of life, you know, improving in that area down the road, and that's never going to happen with t.x.i.
i mean if it's not -- if there was any chance of it happening, it certainly isn't going to happen with t.x.i.
out there.
so what I would like to know, what t.x.i.
standards of reclamation are because I -- I don't see really those as standards.
they really haven't done anything anywhere in the state of Texas.
i'd like to know who -- who has the only contract or how many contracts does the state of Texas have for gravel.
where they are getting their gravel for their cement for all the highways in the state of Texas.
so I think that's it.
i have to go back to work.
>> thank you.
>> [applause]
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> I want to make sure staff got that.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is carey buckheight.
can I point where I currently live?
i just learned for the first time that --
>> [inaudible] semis.
i live right here.
710 52-foot semis.
i'm trying to do the mathment I'm thinking that's a semi a minute or so.
it will be bumper to bumper semis.
52 feet?
that's not that long.
710 trucks would occupy that entire road in order to get out, I would be competing with semi trucks now.
right now the traffic is about one every two hours.
a car.
or the gentleman in the wheelchair makes it back and forth up and down the street.
i can't fathom 710 trucks going up and down this street.
it's utterly senseless.
i'll put this back.
i'm trying to figure out what you haven't heard already
>> [inaudible] so I can give you something new to think about.
in a court setting like this, I think that you can't write law and you can't enforce it, you can only rule over it.
we haven't been given much opportunity nor are we as well resourced and organized as the company with whom we're competing.
so one request of you is that you would grant us at least a six-week stay of any decision so we can present you material upon which you can rule.
because right now all we can do is present you emotional criteria.
you can't rule on that.
there's got to be something we can find that you can rule upon that would stop this utter nonsense.
another thing I don't think that you might know is I have driven all around that community and there's a vast range of income in that community from the very poor, if you go up on the other side of 969, it's across from the colonies and you can see people living at what appears to be the bare end.
but if you look past the facade of these folks, what you see is a lot of them making improvements to the extent they can.
i could tell that a lot of them are laborers and I happen to know because I've been in the business that they will often get the leftovers from large jobs and it appears as though they are taking some of those homes and trying to improve their homes.
so you have this very low income that's making due.
they are pulling it off.
and then you've got the -- the lower middle class, and they are out there making do and pulling it off.
you've got low crime.
and then you've got some upper middle class in and around.
it's kind of like the ideal community that most people -- that a lot of cities strive to achieve because if you get that right mix, you have end up with lower crime, you end up with people trying to improve your lives.
you actually have this in a your precincts.
this would undo it all.
it would completely take it all away.
bear with me.
i would ask for an extension.
i would ask -- I had three items.
i'm trying to remember.
the extension.
i would ask that we be granted access to all of the exchange of documentation between all of the counties and all of the different organizations that t.x.i.
has had to communicate with so that we would have access and a shot at presenting you material.
so full disclosure, if we could get at that.
we're poorly organized so that's why I ask for the six-week extension.
and then since they have this great working relationship with your folks and they are able to closely work with them, I would ask for the same access so that we too could work with them to try to present you material upon which you can rule.
you will hear a number of stories that are very moving and I'll let those continue, but maybe pragmatically you could grant us those thee things.
thank you.
>> [applause]
>> mr.
holden.
mr.
holden, right?
>> yeah, I would like to just suggest an alternative that you might have to turning this land over for strip mining.
and I'll need to point at the map.
>> while you're dogs that, mr.
holden, what is your first name?
>> don.
i talked to you once before about the Travis County green print, and I mentioned it this -- all of this land that's up for strip mining here is rated top priority for conservation.
that's another way of saying it would make a damn good park, okay?
now, you have had some presentations here about the onion creek greenbelt.
a magnificent piece of operation that.
that onion creek greenbelt comes up and it stops at the confluence of onion creek with the colorado river, which is right here.
right here comes onion creek.
this is one of the -- this is one of the pieces of strip mining right here.
you have magnificent frontage all along here.
you are butting up against the yuck green print.
you have more river front age over here.
the enormous recreational possibilities of a park in this area are pretty obvious.
i wish you would consider that alternative.
>> thank you.
>> [applause]
>> yes, sir.
your name, please.
>> richard mcdonald.
i've been here several times.
and there's so many things to talk about, I'm so pleased to not have that three-minute clock ticking, but I'm going to try to talk as fast as I can.
people keep talking about the fields of bluebonnets.
i think that's because when t.x.i.
hosted their neighborhood meetings, this was the invitation they sent around.
it says nothing about a mine.
it says hornsby bend project, east and west presentations, please plan to attend and there's a field of bluebonnets in the back.
you can't really tell by looking, but if you look close way in the background, you see these bluebonnets are 20 or 30 feet below grade because the reclamation that we've been talking about here, the law, my understanding of the law is all they are required to do is to not leave slopes where cars can fall into the pit and put six inches of native topsoil back down so that they can re-seed the things.
now, what their plans they've shown the city and stuff to do is reclaim some of this back to subdivision.
but the fact is if you remove -- if you dig down 40 to 60 feet and remove sand and gravel, you are not going to end up back to grade.
we've talked about that over and over.
they are not required by law.
that's why they haven't done it all along 973.
of course I'm going to bring up the fact that transportation and natural resources have decided when we're talking about a law, chapter 64-0-66, compatibility, including compliance
>> [inaudible] is the reason for denying this permit.
t.n.r.
has decided that this law was written by mistake, it was left in the law by mistake, and they are going to ignore it.
what geiselman told me was that the Texas legislature has not clearly given Texas counties the authorities to enforce this specific provision.
it is on the code, though, and as far as I'm concerned, either t.n.r.
or in compliance with Commissioners court here have decided to completely disclude that law.
i'm not an attorney.
all I know this law is in the books.
this property should be evaluated accord to that.
we've come here and I've asked is there going to be a vote on this and I'm still not sure the way this has been brought up that county is going to consider it once it meets all criteria of the law.
and what I've been asking over and over is can you vote this thing down?
do you have the authority to say no, this thing is approved by the county, we can't do anything about it, and I'm still asking the question and I'm hoping we get the answer to that today.
one more thing that just came up is this road improvement agreement.
this is the first time any of us have heard about that.
terry talked about access to information and stuff like that.
Commissioner Davis, you asked us to provide representatives that you could communicate with and I was basically elected as somewhat of a representative, but I haven't heard a thing from you about what's going on with this project.
i have -- every time I want to request information of t.n.r.
i have to file an open records request and ask for specific documents.
some of them are complied with, some are completely ignored.
>> let me respond to that and I need to respond to another statement that was not correct.
and that was an earlier statement that was made that I polled this particular project and there was nothing I could do about it.
>> I can't hear.
>> > I was talking about an earlier comment.
i might as well get this one and yours.
an early comment was made I opposed the project and there was nothing I could do about it.
i would like to make sure that a matter of record I did say opposed to this project but I never did say there was nothing I could do about it.
number 2, as far as the information that you said -- and it's true that you are the representative and I provided you the information that is probable the best of my ability that I had in my possession to provide you.
and, of course, I've done that and I'd like to let you know the latest information is the information that I have here that we just received here not too long ago.
so I would like to let you know that the information that I have in my possession you've gotten.
thank you.
>> this new roadway agreement plan that we've all just heard about this morning, it was put on the agenda, what, Wednesday or something like that and we've just heard the details of it, no one in this room before now has heard anything about 700 trucks.
the conveyor belt at the t.x.i.
meetings, t.x.i.
was asked specifically are you going with the conveyor belt, is there any reason why you would not go with the conveyor belt, and they repeatedly told us over and over again no, there will be no trucks in your neighborhood.
we're going with the conveyor belt no matter what happens.
and it just -- that conveyor belt was dropped even according to memos I've received from the city of Austin in order to avoid a public variance hearing at the city of Austin.
i don't know if I can prove that, but that's what the city has been telling each other in memos.
that's why they dropped the conveyor belt.
another part of this, what I'm realizing, the plan to do work in the intersection of dunlap road and 969, I live out there too and I have two ways to go out.
i can either go out dunlap road or out through the neighborhood at hunters bend.
last few weeks these foggy mornings, we wake up, I don't even think of going to dunlap and 969 because you have to pull out into a curve basically.
now, can you imagine 710 trucks whether there's a left turn lane or not pulling out on to that curve and the blood bath that's going to ensue from that.
and the other question I have about that is the county entering into agreements with t.x.i.
to do work in that intersection when that intersection is all in the critical water quality zone of decker creek and is it subject to city of Austin approval also because of that.
that's a question I would like answered.
thank you.
>> thank you.
yes, sir.
>> [applause]
>> I'm kenneth cohen.
president of the imperial valley neighborhood association.
this -- this site involves -- and by the way, chris has a request for records sustaining richard's request and the prior -- the speaker, I forget his name, but he was sitting where ms.
jones is sitting.
as a retired military research scientist, I find the t.x.i.
and entire gravel pit operation that has existed on 973 since about 1954, t.x.i.
starting as a -- a company that could afford only one trailer house for its office, has been before public meeting after public meeting after public meeting for almost 37 years.
i haven't done all of the stats, but I'm here to ask why does the united states secretary of interior, death it salazar, former senator of colorado -- kenneth -- why does he forewarn us that there's a need, that there is a need to rewrite the 1872 mining act?
he is talking to every Commissioners court in the united states when he says we have a major problem.
and ms.
bolin, I ask that you and the entire county staff research me what the rights are of a miner who is approved by any government body and you say there's no county controls.
well, if the Texas -- if the Texas legislature should happen to pass in one year, pass a bill and it gets signed into law as an act, and you have already made a decision about t.x.i.
that it is approved, that's a government entity putting a stamp of approval on a document that cannot be refuture in court.
nor can the text legislature
>> [indiscernible] giving you certain powers that happens in the state -- I mean in the state of Travis County.
we are like a state, yes?
because Travis County will overpower Texas legislative -- legislature if you put a stamp of approval on this act that t.x.i.
is asking for.
it only takes one shovel full, like mr.
obama did at the -- when the garden was started outside the white house, only one shovel full per year, 12 months, is required for a -- for a mining -- a mine to be renewed year after year for 100 years.
that's all it takes is one shovel full of earth being moved.
in a mine that was approved by some governmental body has a right under the 1872 mining act, it has a right under that act to be renewed, and that puts you in the driver's seat.
you could at least charge a fee of t.x.i.
and stay in this process.
you say, well, zoning right now is done by the city of Austin.
but if you don't charge a fee of some kind up front and stay in it for the long term, Travis County is out of the circuit forever.
and that is -- that's bad for the community.
it's bad for the health of people that have to worry about children, raising children like my three and a half-year-old grand baby, the only baby that I'll ever have.
i'm worried that in in community if sophia is brought here to live, that she could have that cancer produced in her system by the dust of another gravel pit.
>> [indiscernible] gravel pit once.
there's all kinds of gravel pits.
all it takes is once it's approved is one shovel full of earth to be turned.
you have an opportunity to take the forewarning of ken salazar this March 2009, you have that and I'm asked it over and over in this request, my written testimony.
i really urge that -- that we do something to listen to more than just the emotions, but have the staff dig into this 1872 mining act and know and tell the Commissioners exactly what limitations -- we don't have standards that the united states has passed on relative to mining operations and reformation.
we're worried right now on 973 and 969, three blocks from 969, that the tceq permit 2310 will continue to allow the city of Austin -- on the sign it says Austin municipal solid waste disposal site.
approved by tceq.
now, you know that tceq just went before the u.s.
supreme court just a few days ago and was found uncharacteristically out of -- out of their minds.
>> [laughter] they really were.
they were found out of their minds relative to the clean air act.
that's a major indication that we don't have an enforcement body.
tceq does not enforce the law.
it does in the enforce what people ask and what this court might decide.
i'm adamant about this, but I'm also trying to base it in -- my anger in real life circumstances and the law.
we right now have a chance for you to do as the man requested, give us the information, every bit of it.
and this is a foia, freedom of information act.
>> who did you give that to?
>> it's in chris' hands.
if you need more copies, I've got more copies for every one of you.
>> thank you very much.
yes.
new and different comments, please.
>> okay.
can you hear me?
>> yes.
>> first of all, I apologize for my kids wandering around.
my named is mandy corasco.
i live in chapperal crossing.
i have a bunch of questions and it would be nice if we could have answers.
>> that will be new and different.
>> okay.
i understand that t.x.i.
might have the legal right to be there.
if so, if they do get approved, which way will the trucks be going?
will they just be going back and forth between the site or accessing 969 and going to the highway.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> so they will be going because -- thank you.
there is an elementary school there.
so how many trucks will be passing the schools?
like if there's 710 total, do you know how much the traffic is going to be in front of the school?
>> according to the information provided by their traffic consultant at their peak of operation they estimate 710 vehicle trips per day, traveling up down dunlap across 969 to the driveway at the webberville processing facility.
so --
>> so that statistic doesn't include any of the going over to the highway is this.
>> that's truck traffic up dunlap road to the intersection with 969 and turning right, east on 969 to the webberville processing facility.
>> okay, so that statistic does not include going to the highway.
>> post processing, t.x.i.
would haul that material to the proposed construction sites where it was planned to be used.
>> okay.
will the trucks be going just up and down hunters bend?
>> there's no proposal for that.
dunlap road --
>> just for our piece of mind if we see trucks, what are the actions we're supposed to take as neighbors?
>> I believe from the public meetings that I have attended with t.x.i.
is they have given contact information for the site operator and, number one, I would expect that you should immediately notify t.x.i.
that that's occurring.
>> okay.
for the t.x.i.
people, I keep seeing this map, but it's always shaded different and so I would like to know -- I'll show you where I live and what my main concern is.
i've contacted the local historic societies and they've asked you guys to postpone your decision until December 9th because it isn't -- the mansion that's there, I wanted to know if that is in part of your property that you've purchased for the proposed mine.
who are t.x.i.
people?
are they all gone?
he's right there.
so is hunters mansion and the graveyard, is that part of it?
because according to all the things I've seen, it looks like it is part of that.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> so it will remain intact?
>> could you come up so folks can hear your response.
>> and also for the record.
>> yeah, we need to get that response.
>> the hunter mansion and the graveyard are a part of the real estate deal, but that area is not a part of the mine area.
>> so you won't be doing anything with the mansion?
it is not a part of the mine area.
>> what are your plans for it?
>> we have not reached any decision on what our plans are for that area, but it is not included in part of the mining process.
>> that's not an answer.
>> I would like to point out for the Commissioners that the hunter mansion and its graveyard are on the city of Austin's website and noted as an Austin treasure.
i have the website if you want it or you can look on your own city website.
i have pictures of it on my camera, if you want to look.
it looks really neat.
it's right outside of my house.
beautiful.
hopefully if you all do go ahead and build a gravel mine there, you won't do anything with it.
but I've driven past the other -- what is it, the east site.
you can't see it from the road.
so I'm wondering with dunlap will you be able to see the mine from the road because there are 1,000 acres.
is it going to be pushed back or right up on top of it?
where are you proposing to put the eyesore part of it?
>> the limits of construction including both uplands and the fema.
>> what does that mean?
>> that means there are parts of that construction activity that will be next to dunlap road and that there are parts of it that will be off in the bottom that you won't be able to see from the road.
>> okay, so on the hunters bend side of it, the property that you own there, are you all not putting anything on that side of dunlap road?
>> I'm sorry, on which side?
>> your property isn't shaded on here and I've seen several maps.
i've seen several where it's on the eastern side of dunlap and that it also comes down to the western side of dunlap.
no, on the other side.
underneath hunters bend.
that's the area I'm questioning.
are you putting anything in that part?
>> [one moment, please]
>> so this you're if they want -- a gravel pit is bad enough, but if they wanted to bring in a pig rendering plant we don't have the authority to say know based on it being a pig rendering plant.
as staff pointed out, the only avenues of questioning the state gives us the authority even to ask are with regard to drainage and a very limited species of transportation questions.
>> okay.
>> which is -- it's -- I -- I think everyone of us up here would say that is a frustratingly short list of authorities when you are faced with these kinds of circumstances.
>> okay.
well then my last note patty hanson of the Travis County historic commission has contacted all of you and has asked that you I guess postpone your decision.
>> did she do it last night?
>> she did.
>> because I don't know anything about it.
>> she's got all of you listed plus barry hutchinson and mae smith.
they would like the opportunity to look into the mansion's historic significance because it meets all the qualifications for city, county, state historic and possibly some of the acreage surrounding it because it is still an operating farm, so to say.
i would like that to be considered.
>> thank you.
>> [applause]
>> good morning, my name is dr.
elizabeth jones.
i spoke here before.
and I am -- I also live in chapperal cross and I will look out right upon the east mining part of the project.
i'm also here speaking on behalf of ms.
carly foreman.
i think you've received a number of e-mails from her.
she has a very serious health condition and she has -- were has allergies and acute asthma and copd, emphysema from past contamination exposure.
and she moved here from another state under her doctor's orders, moved to chapperal crossing because two years ago it's very peaceful, it's beautiful, it's serene.
i also bought my property there too, as I've said before.
and again, the immediate area around the proposed gravel pit really is residential now, and I like some of my neighbors invite to you come and drive out there now.
every morning when I leave for the office, I try to envision what this gravel pit operation is going to look like.
it will be dusty, it will be noisy.
and I do take dunlap out to 969 to turn left.
i envision what it will be with a gravel truck, 18-wheeler coming toward me.
i'm telling you, we can't fit on the road.
we can't.
and there's no shoulder.
and when you are trying to turn left or right at that intersection of 969 and dunlap, it is going to be a catastrophe.
now, I understand txdot has looked at this and they think it's going to be safe and okay.
it really cannot be.
i beg you to come out and look at it for yourself.
and I also beg you to think about your county budget.
because you are going to have to put some more money into e.m.s.
and to the county sheriff's department.
there is no way we cannot have tons of accidents out there.
there really isn't.
i beg you to really come look at it for yourself.
the next record is I have asked for -- I did take advantage of the public information act from the city.
and I was sent and everyone responded very timely.
i was sent a list of e-mails and some information, and I did go through all of the e-mails because I really was trying to figure out what was going on.
you know, we have been here talking about this for a long time.
we have raised all the health issues.
that's why we're emotional now.
we have real tried to raise all the other issues.
it looked to me from the e-mails as if the experts, the experts who are looking at this application had some very grave concerns about ground water contamination in particular.
and then all of a sudden there's a Thursday meeting.
and these people are very good at writing e-mails, the Thursday meeting.
someone -- it was with the mayor's office.
someone did actually put that in an e-mail, but the rest of it is Thursday meeting, Thursday meeting, Thursday meeting.
things shifted.
and you know, as a citizen, as a taxpayer, somebody who is really going to be affected by this, I really became -- I became aggravated.
and then things -- it wasn't -- and then to get the rest of the information, I have to take almost an entire day and go down there and read all the attachments.
i work, I'm busy, I too am a public servant, and but nonetheless, we do -- I want a second and third and a fourth that we really need the full information.
we need to know the full players at the table because this will impact our lives.
so please, I'm also asking for that as well.
we also -- the other thing about t.x.i., and last night I was on the internet trying to scramble so I wouldn't sound like an emotional mess sort of going through all the documents I had pulled, you know, over 10 years ago there was all this concern around midlothian and I'm going gosh, that's 1996.
we're in 2009.
t.x.i.
does not have a good record in terms of staying within their environmental specifications.
they tend to slip things in at the last minute.
they are not a good steward or good citizen here.
and I understand the need for gravel.
i understand the need, you know, to win your project, I do, but they do not have a good track record.
and time and time and time again issues have been raised about them.
the e.p.a.
and even
>> [indiscernible] have fined them repeatedly.
things just keep going on.
so that concerns me a great deal.
and I also know after reading all these documents that this is larger than us in this room.
we are now into political and power.
that's where we are.
and decisions are being made -- well, I'm assuming, this is what I'm feeling like, in the back rooms, our former governor determined who would be head of agencies so that teqweb would to longer do assessments of t.x.i.
how true it is, I don't know.
i'm just telling you.
that is is any two Sundays ago the headline is the e.p.a.
is going to do something about Texas because we really let a lot of variances, there's no transparency, no public input and we may lose our right to even grant these permits.
this is very, very important.
and okay, I'm going to stop talking.
again, I appreciate the position that you are in and I please ask you to postpone this decision.
give us time to also be part of the conversation.
we have very talented people.
you should -- you know, you are getting all of our e-mails, I don't know if you've read some of them.
from ms.
foreman, she is very knowledgeable on this topic and I appreciate that.
i thank you for letting us be here and I too am -- you know she you may consider this emotional or a tree hugger or whatever, but this is a core value for me.
and it's a native american thing that we did not inherit this earth from our ancestors.
we are borrowing it or leasing it from our children and our children's children.
thank you.
>> mr.
reeferseed.
>> thank you judge.
out standing presentation.
my question, I don't live in the neighborhood, but as a concerned citizen, I can see just from observing today, I mean the obvious question is who benefits except those some mining company.
i mean all these people and all this impact and to quote somebody I heard it's going to be ready to go in a couple of weeks.
all they have to do is work out what they think is remaining three issues, which I think ms.
Eckhardt mentioned they are limited to drainage and transpo, but that's oblivious to the main valid questions mentioned earlier by ms.
bolin, a whole list of them.
inevitable -- many adverse impacts on the overall quality of life for everyone who lives nearby.
my mind was blown.
over 700 trucks every day?
come on.
this is so outrageous.
the issues are not only water quality, ground water contamination and thus quality, but air pollution, the soil preservation.
you mentioned the sandy loam.
we're destroying the best that we could possible have.
and then noise pollution and light pollution and home values obviously would be totally destroyed with this heavy rock truck traffic and the banishment of remaining wildlife and not to mention car and safety.
i live in a house where I -- I cherish what little remaining wildlife still visit my property every now and then.
i can see obviously something like this would totally destroy any -- any attractive value to those home investments.
and it's not one company we're trying to protect here, one mining company, it's all those homes, all those citizens and all those aspects of quality of life in Travis County which I think we can be proud of with your leadership up until now, we're on the right track formally, but here it's so completely the wrong way to go that I could just not prevent myself from just throwing in my two cents.
thank you so much for listening to me.
>> and our final citizen today.
>> good morning or good afternoon.
judge Biscoe, Commissioners, I'm patricia olivera.
i life on -- I'm going to point it out.
milo road.
probably 75 feet from the front door is one of the proposed mine tracts.
so you know the reason why I'm so concerned.
i just have a few questions that only require a yes, no answer so we can be out of here quick.
these are followup questions to things asked earlier that we didn't hear a response to.
first thing is will the Commissioners direct t.n.r.
to review the permit according to chapter 64.006 regarding compatibility with anticipated development in the area.
this is what was previously described by mr.
geiselman as an error, a draft language that was left in the law as it is in the books today.
it's in the books.
my understanding is it's in the books, you've got to go by it.
you can't just ignore something.
>> there is a book that supersedes our book.
and it's the local government code set by the Texas legislature.
and it supersedes ours and it prevents us specifically from considering the use of the land in whether or not we provide a permit or not.
>> stated another way, the policy claims authority that we don't have.
>> so why was it ever even in there?
>> that's why it's a mistake.
state law trumps us.
>> how come it hasn't been changed, fixed?
it's been in there a long time.
>> I didn't come to my attention before I saw the e-mail.
>> we brought this to mr.
geiselman's attention back in April, may.
>> [multiple voices]
>> second question?
>> second question.
so the answer to the first is no.
can t.x.i.
enter into an agreement with Travis County to improve the intersection, talking about 969, dunlap road, without the city of Austin approval?
because it is in decker creek floodway.
can you do that without city of Austin?
>> I don't know, joe, if it's a county road now, we can do it without the city of Austin.
dunlap road is a county road at this location.
>> dunlap road is a Travis County maintained road.
fm 969, as we've described is maintained by txdot.
improvements at that intersection would require approval of all three jurisdictions, Travis County, for the portion outside txdot right-of-way, city of Austin also for the portion outside txdot right-of-way, and txdot for the portion that is within txdot right-of-way.
>> so the three of us, I guess.
>> okay.
last question.
will we have a public hearing on this issue?
>> this is a public hearing today.
>> well, this isn't a public hearing because it wasn't announced.
>> this is a public hearing today.
>> I thought -- it's my understanding we have to give 15 days advance notice of any public hearing.
>> what's that, tceq, city of Austin's that's another entity.
this is a public hearing --
>> not Travis County.
>> no, ma'am.
>> it was never referred to as a public hearing.
>> but it didn't have to be.
it is a public hearing when we take comments from the public.
what we did was notify residents that we had -- that we understood were interested in this item so we could give them an opportunity to come down and address us.
>> then I just have one last followup question.
can you tell me why, because I sent an e-mail to all of the Commissioners last Thursday asking this question and I still have yet to get a response.
why was it rushed on the agenda today?
why was it so critical to be a today's agenda not allowing us to get the word out about this, to notify media, to do other things that we would have done if we had -- if it had not been rushed on today's agenda?
>> what was the big push to get it on today's agenda?
>> well, there's a December 1 deadline, for one thing.
>> what is that deadline?
>> it's the city of Austin deadline, not ours.
we've known about this issue for months.
the facts have been the same.
we've been briefed by our lawyers three or four times.
there are other things that impact it.
i don't know that as a court we have heard from residents in this setting.
>> no.
>> but we did know about the other meetings that t.x.i.
had.
i looked at the comments before today.
we knew about Commissioner Davis' meeting at the east service center, east side service center.
and I got a briefing from staff after that.
so we've known about these issues.
>> I know you know about them.
>> but there is nothing magical about calling something a public hearing.
this was a public hearing today in that every resident so far that's been down has been given an opportunity to give comments and we've got a problem because we need to break for lunch in just a few minutes.
>> I just want to state for the record we -- we think it was rushed on to the agenda for some reason that we don't know about.
because like we said, we got one -- you told us on Thursday this was happening.
we had Friday and over the weekend to get information out to the residents.
and we thought that was unfair.
because, again, t.x.i.
on yesterday notified you that they did not have the answers to certain questions.
immediately it was considered that you would postpone this.
that they would be moved to December 1st.
we did not get that same consideration.
>> t.x.i.
said that on Friday and yesterday morning, county staff had requested additional information that they could not gather in a few hours but it would take a few days.
>> right.
>> if we were to take action today, I don't know how critical that information is, but staff believes it's important.
so we would have been -- but the reason I didn't postpone it for residents is we had notified those that are interested, hey, this item will be on the agenda.
in that same e-mail, I said the court may well hold off on action until December 1 or later.
that's a decision that we make.
but in terms of us just rushing this on to agenda, last time mr.
mcdonald came to court, y'all were asking for an audience with us.
i don't know, normally when we have a public hearing, it is something that we kind of have -- either required by law or we want to get people notice that this is a new subject that we're taking up.
this is not new to the residents out there.
the four meetings, e-mails that I have seen, mr.
mcdonald coming down here, his basically being in disagreement with mr.
geiselman about the policy.
so I'm -- what I'm saying is this issue has been out there with the residents forever.
we knew it would be alanuising - an agonizing decision, and we won't take action today, maybe next week or the 8th depending on I guess when we get the information.
>> okay.
>> now, we have not heard from you.
>> I just have a couple quick --
>> I wasn't finished.
one second for the record.
>> I'm sorry?
>> your two questions have become four.
>> I didn't say two, I said a few.
this is the last thing.
just to clear things up.
t.x.i.
did not hold three separate meetings for the residents.
they held the same meeting on three days.
they divided the residents by -- I don't know if it's by neighborhood street, what, but this group goes on this day, this group on this day, this group on another day so it's really one and the same.
they've had one meeting.
thank you.
>> my name is vera wideman and I live on milo road, which is -- I would be surrounded by -- you can see milo road close to the river.
i heard the realtor say they were trying to sell another 1,000 homes she but there's already 3,000 homes in the area that would be affected.
3,000, not businesses where people can go home at night and get away from what's going on all night long as machines continue making noise and dust in the night, but 3,000 homes where people live and have to breathe the air and drink the water.
and my main concern, there's a lot of concerns about air pollution and the night sky and stuff like that, but is the water.
and I understood that you had some jurisdiction over what happens to the water there and I'm hoping that you do something about this before they ruin our water.
because all those 3,000 homes live off well warm.
none of us have city water out there and all of us are going to be affected by what they do.
my well is 35 feet deep and most of them are 12 to 55 feet deep, and we're all going to be affected.
and they are going to not only take our water and use it for their purpose to wash the gravel, but they are going to put some of it back into the system and it's going to pollute the water.
my water is very pure.
i had it tested and that's one of the reasons I moved out there is because I can grow a garden and my vegetables don't have a bunch of pollutants in them.
i only have a lot of calcium in my water which is the thing that filters out all the other stuff.
i don't know what they are going to put in the water, but they are going to definitely ruin it.
isn't there some study we can reference that shows that they definitely destroys the water table in the surrounding area, and all these homes are going to be affected.
isn't that enough for you to be able to stop this?
that's my only question.
>> well, but it's hard to anticipate that.
this is regulated by the state, not the county, right?
and that's our problem.
two points and then I have a motion to go to lunch.
one is the reality that we face is that it looks -- if you do certain things to come by by county policy, we can approve it.
we don't have to approve a project in spite of the fact that it meets county policy.
however, your ability to overturn that in a court of propose jurisdiction is much, much easier.
that's why we have conferenced with our lawyers numerous times before today.
and so that's the reality that we face not only with respect to this project but the other projects that meet county policies.
every time the legislature comes to town, we go over and ask for additional land use authority.
and every time when they adjourn at the end of the session, they have not given it.
right?
now, we can call this item back up this afternoon for those interested in coming.
who would like to come back at 2:00?
that's when we'll be back.
this item will be on the agenda either December 1 or December 8.
>> I do have some specific questions of staff this afternoon if that's all right.
>> I move that we recess to 2:00.
>> thank you very much.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
before we recessed for lunch at about 12:30, we were discussing item number 5 5 and a couple members of court indicated they had questions.
we were kind of rushed between 12:10 and 12:30.
mr.
priest has comments.
anybody else?
mr.
priest?
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
morris priest, speaking on my own behalf.
i had mentioned this issue before campo as well as the county on previous occasions and one of the items on the campo agenda was referring to it, I would ask the board members of campo and I would encourage all those who are interested in this to contact the campo board members as well as capcog and as well as senator cornyn and kirk watson and all the other people that are in the area, michael mccall, lamar smith, lee leffingwell and I was hoping we could get a resolution passed by the county and these other jurisdictions to boycott t.x.i.
because it's the only thing it looks like that we have left.
and the only other thing that I wanted to state on the matter was that the county can do this for a public health and safety reason, and I still don't see why the Commissioners and the court couldn't vote against this.
when they came to the city the first time to the zoning and platting commission, they didn't even have the right thing on their application and they should have been asked to renew this, but the question that I had for the court, isn't this part of a comprehensive development agreement that lee leffingwell and the city attorney drew into who road agreement which by statute they are not allowed to say as far as house bill 2707 or 3508, and I was wondering if you had any information on that?
>> two things, counties have a whole more authority -- cities have a whole lot more authority than counties in Texas.
austin would be able to do a whole lot more than we would.
secondly is that we have had our lawyers look at all of the provisions that purport to give us authority in this area and we've been getting pretty much the same legal opinion from them.
>> but what I was asking is if the court is sure that they've gotten all the documents that the city has signed with t.x.i.
>> oh, I don't know.
do we know that?
so you are asking whether we have received all the documents that t.x.i.
filed with the city?
>> right.
that they have signed on.
any agreement.
>> okay, do we typically get that?
i know we can ask for it and if it's a matter of public reported if it's been executed.
>> you know, I hope that the city would provide that information.
>> okay.
now, anybody else?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> we would never do that, mr.
mcdonald.
>> before we left, patricia oliveira was pushing why this was set and you mentioned that December 1st deadline you thought existed.
was that the city of Austin?
>> it's the city's deadline, not ours.
>> to expand -- to expire the --
>> the city has a December 1 deadline which if not met they will make you refile.
what they want from us is some indication of what we plan to do.
>> to sign off on driveway permits and stuff like that?
>> well, the stuff we're authorized to sign off on.
>> and would you do that before the permit is approved?
>> well, typically we would.
right?
and the other thing is that in terms of meeting county policies, we have conducted business on this matter the way we do it.
maybe we -- maybe we should improve that, but in response to ms.
oliveira's question about the public hearing, if I had just put public hearing next to this item, I don't know that it would have made a difference.
i assume the same people would have come down and said the same thing.
>> well, yeah.
i guess I didn't know why there was a difference on the --
>> yeah, but we ended up -- and yesterday when I got information about our requesting additional information and their needing time to do it, I thought it was a win-win.
i thought for those who couldn't come today but could come next Tuesday would be given another opportunity to do so.
>> I agree.
>> but it's one of those issues that is thorny.
we've agonized over it and at some point we just have to do it or not.
historicry we've tried to be law abiding, and if we have a policy we try to follow it.
at the same time, though, we have the authority not to follow our own policies in addition to making us hypothetical critical, it makes us easy targets in court.
but, you know, we usually take the position that comes with the job.
>> okay.
thanks.
>> anybody else?
court members?
>> I just had a couple of questions.
as far as the time frame, are you all expecting a week or two weeks?
and I know it's prognostication because it really depends on t.x.i.'s actions, but in your experience on these sorts of matters, are we looking at a week, two weeks?
three?
>> in my experience, especially since this is a short week for us with thanksgiving, I doubt that we would have it resolved before next Tuesday.
we would certainly make every attempt to do what we can to meet a deadline, but my sense is that it probably would be more likely to be two weeks because then once we reach an agreement, we would want to post that in backup memo -- that with backup memo with an agenda item.
>> is there -- is there -- I know t.x.i.
has a lot of people on this project.
is there a specific individual that the residents and people with concerns can go to inside t.x.i.
with their concerns?
do we know?
of course, we don't have the t.x.i.
representative here to tell us, but is there a specific --
>> we may have one or two here.
>> is there a specific point person at t.x.i.
for residents -- you'll have to come up and speak on the mic for us to make the record.
>> judge and Commissioners, maurice osborne, manager of communication and government affairs for t.x.i.
and the answer to your question is yes, we do have someone designated and if they go to our website the name and phone number is there.
>> who is that person?
>> it is the plant manager.
i'm sorry, I don't have his name.
but it is -- his name and the phone number is on the website.
>> okay.
>> and certainly, you know, if there is anybody here, staff or otherwise that would like my card, I would be certainly willing to give that and direct people to the appropriate source.
>> because it does seem like -- sorry about that.
since our authority over this with regard to our permitting authority from the state is really such a small slice of this and there does seem to be other -- other issues, it seems good to put that out into the world to create some community good will to the extent t.x.i.
is willing to.
>> Commissioner, we have done that since early may prior to or at the meetings, and our website provides for people to ask questions and we respond to those promptly.
>> I'm looking at the website right now.
i see central Texas -- under contact us.
>> no, if you'll look -- if you are on the home page, go down to the bottom of the page on the left-hand side there should be a hornsby bend project.
>> yes.
for more information about the hornsby bend project click here to send thoughts and questions.
what I'm looking at is a human being with name and telephone number.
>> I think if you quick the questions and answers, one of the questions under the questions and answer section that we put in there is who do you contact, and I think that's where you will find the name and the phone number.
>> if I might, during the t.x.i.
hearings that were held at the airport, when that question was asked, the answer given was please contact operations manager by e-mail at jparks@txi.com if you have any concerns or problems.
>> joe parks is the plant manager.
>> okay.
>> telephone number
>> [inaudible] because everybody does not have computers to send e-mails or to talk through e-mail and it just appears to me there should be some telephone number associated with that.
>> well, I was under the impression we did have that out there.
if that's not there, we can correct that.
and if there's some source that we need to provide that to, Commissioner, to where it can be disseminated, I would be glad to do that.
>> I think it would be good to have the name, telephone number and address so if people want to write snail mail too or make a phone call.
at least some attempt to establish some sort of community good will.
>> absolutely.
we would be more than happy to do that.
>> and then in regard to our own liaison with the concerned residents, is there -- I understood that perhaps mr.
mcdonald had been made the point person?
i was just wondering if there was a point person through which information is distributed to the residents.
>> it would probably be either i.
>> but do you all have an individual in the community who has -- who is -- I mean not that there's any formal organization of residents, but do we have a pipeline?
because --
>> Commissioner, I would say that's richard mcdonald.
>> and also nathaniel booker over in Austin colonies, per se.
>> okay.
and I think those were my only -- I just had those professional questions in the hopes of facilitating some exchange of information here since our authority is so limited, at least we could be a clearinghouse of information to the extent that we have it.
>> and I would like to take just a minute or two to clarify on the vehicle trips per day.
i know there was a lot of interest in that this morning and I just wanted to clear that for the record, but also to point out that the traffic study that was provided by h.d.r., the consultant to t.x.i., is a public record and can be viewed at our central files office over in t.n.r.
so anyone who wants to see a copy can come take a look at it.
but I also just wanted to clarify, regarding the trips per day, in their traffic study, h.d.r.
is estimating that operating at their maximum capacity, and here I say maximum because they do estimate that the operations would start at a lower volume of approximately 3,000 tons per day between the two sites and that would increase up to a total of about 6,000 tons per day, and at that total of 6,000 tons per day, as an estimate, they estimate a two-way volume for vehicle trips, and this will be the direct traffic of 250 vehicle trips a day.
so that's basically -- 125 vehicles making a trip up and down dunlap road.
the 710 vehicle figure is actually related to the existing processing plant where materials are actually leaving the plant to go to customer sites.
and that actually would include both the existing operations, which they estimate at on-hang on.
sorry.
they estimate an increase of 480 travel trips a day from the processing site, from 480 to 710 if they have the full operations of the east and west mining sites.
but that 710 figure relates to traffic on 969 and didn't relate specifically to traffic up and down dunlap road.
we just wanted to clarify that.
>> thank you for that.
could we put mr.
parks' information up on -- do we have anything on our website with regard to the t.x.i.
permit?
>> I don't think we do.
>> no, we don't, specifically.
>> I don't suppose we usually do that with any kind of permit, so I would ask that t.x.i.
put something up because I don't see anything referencing a mr.
parks at all on the website.
>> I just looked on my blackberry.
it is on there, but as Commissioner Davis pointed out, it just has his name and e-mail address, there's no phone number.
>> folks would need that.
that would be good if that correction could be made whereby they would be able to contact him by phone or e-mail.
put something in writing, as the Commissioner suggested.
>> be glad to.
>> I'm just looking for it.
it's on the hornsby bend project east and west Travis County on that page somewhere?
>> I just clicked on the -- where it says more information and down into the question -- several questions.
>> okay.
i don't see it, but I'll find it.
thank you.
>> anybody that wants that name and phone number and address, we ought to have it by tomorrow, right?
tomorrow afternoon.
>> should.
contact our office.
>> staff or court members will get to you.
anything else on this item?
>> judge, I wanted to say one thing.
i wanted to make sure that folks realize that we have really been and we have heard different Commissioners speak in behalf of having limited authority, and it's not that Travis County has not been doing anything to try to gain more authority in this past legislative session, for example, we made several attempts to make sure that Travis County is granted more authority than it has right now.
and there was some bills that were out before unfortunately they died in calendar that addressed a lot of things to allow the county -- Travis County to have more authority than we have now.
of course, we are not successful, so I don't want anyone to leave here thinking that, well, what is the county doing since they have such limited authority, what are they doing about it.
well, we have and working real hard with the state legislature trying to get more authority than what we have now.
i just wanted folks to realize that, judge.
>> okay.
appreciate it.
based on what I'm hearing from staff, we're looking at the 8th of December.
>> provided the agreement -- the remaining items are worked out, we would be looking at the 8th of December.
but I really think that those agreements need to be worked out prior to being on Commissioners court.
>> okay.
well, we'll put December 8th down and if they are not ready by then, we'll just take it off.
how's that?
you are supposed to spay that's fine, judge.
>> that's fine, judge.
>> anything else on this item?
>> appreciate the folks coming down and participating in this.
we said that we would open it up to them as we discussed in September to have them to have their say with everybody under the same umbrella discussing this issue.
so I really appreciate the effort of staff and also the residents that have come out and expressed their views public electrically.
electrically -- publicly.
>> we certainly do.
number 20, ms.
grimes, approve 12-month extension to contract number -- this is the blanket judge's professional liability insurance.
we indicated this morning unless there was emergency, we would take another week.
is that okay?
we'll have 20 back on next week, December 1st.
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, November 24, 2009 1:40 PM
