DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas No. 03-19-00304-CV In the Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas State of Texas, Appellant, v. City of Double Horn, et al., Appellees. On Appeal from the 424th Judicial District Court, Burnet County REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT Ken Paxton Patrick K. Sweeten Attorney General of Texas Associate Deputy for Special Litigation Jeffrey C. Mateer David J. Hacker First Assistant Attorney General Special Counsel to the First Assistant Attorney General RYAN L. BANGERT State Bar No. 24103323 Deputy Attorney General for Legal [email protected] Counsel Kent Richardson Office of the Attorney General Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 001) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Counsel for the State of Texas Tel.: (512) 936-1700 Fax: (512) 474-2697 Oral Argument Requested Table of Contents Page Index of Authorities ................................................................................................ii Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Argument................................................................................................................ 2 I. The State Satisfied the Probable-Ground Standard Necessary to File a Quo Warranto Lawsuit. .................................................................... 2 A. The probable-ground standard requires only allegations giving rise to a cause of action. ............................................................ 2 B. The probable-ground standard does not reach the merits. ................... 4 C. The Court should not contradict decades of quo warranto precedent. ........................................................................................... 7 II. A Quo Warranto Pleading Does Not Need to Be Verified and its Exhibits Do Not Need to Be Admissible. ................................................. 10 III. The Court Should Not Take Judicial Notice of the “Evidence” Double Horn Submits for the First Time on Appeal, and, in any Event, These Documents Are Irrelevant. ................................................ 13 IV. The State Pleaded a Probable Ground to Challenge Double Horn’s Incorporation. .............................................................................. 15 A. Double Horn is not a village or town that qualifies for incorporation as a city. ...................................................................... 15 B. Double Horn did not incorporate for strictly municipal purposes. ........................................................................................... 17 Prayer ...................................................................................................................20 Certificate of Service............................................................................................. 21 Certificate of Compliance ..................................................................................... 21 i Index of Authorities Page(s) Cases: Alamo Club v. State, 147 S.W. 639 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1912, writ ref’d) ........................... 10, 11 Am. Veterans, Dep’t of Tex. v. City of Austin, No. 03–03–00762–CV, 2005 WL 3440786 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 15, 2015, no pet.) ................................................................................................ 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 9 Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) ................................................................................ 8 Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc., 805 S.W.2d 498 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, writ denied) .................................. 13 City of Waco v. Higginson, 243 S.W. 1078 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1922) ....................................................... 18 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 9 In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 761 F. Supp. 2d 504 (S.D. Tex. 2011) ................................................................. 9 Gonzales v. Concerned Citizens of Webberville, 173 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) ..................................... 3 Harang v. State ex rel. City of W. Columbia, 466 S.W.2d 8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1971, no writ) ....................... 16 Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) .............................................................................. 11 Hyland v. State, 574 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) ............................................................ 5 ii State ex rel. Manchac v. City of Orange, 274 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1955, no writ) ............................. passim McLeod Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kildare Indep. Sch. Dist., 157 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1941, writ ref’d w.o.m.) ................ 10, 11 State ex rel. Mobray v. Masterson, 228 S.W. 623 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1921, writ ref d) ............................... 16, 18 Perry v. Kroger Stores, Store No. 119, 741 S.W.2d 533 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, no writ) ......................................... 13 Ramirez v. State, 973 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.) ............................. 2, 4, 9, 11 Reed v. Prince, 194 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) .............................. 3 Rogers v. Raines, 512 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.) .............................. 16 Sabine Offshore Service, Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. 1979) ............................................................................. 13 Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) ........................................................................... 7, 8 State ex rel. Thornhill v. Huntsaker, 17 S.W.2d 63 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1929, no writ) .................................... 2, 6, 9 Town of Fairview v. Lawler, 252 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) ........................................... 3 Statutes: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.001 .................................................................. 10 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.002 .................................................... 2, 4, 10, 11 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.003.................................................................. 10 iii Other Authorities: Tex. R. App. P. 34.1 .............................................................................................. 13 Tex. R. Civ. P. 59 .................................................................................................. 12 Tex. R. Civ. P. 93 ............................................................................................. 10, 11 Tex. R. Civ. P. 682 .................................................................................................. 8 Tex. R. Civ. P. 779 ........................................................................................... 10, 11 Tex. R. Civ. P. 780 ........................................................................................... 10, 11 Tex. R. Civ. P. 781 ........................................................................................... 10, 11 Tex. R. Evid. 402 .................................................................................................. 14 iv Introduction The State of Texas appeals the district court’s refusal to allow it to file a quo warranto action against the newly incorporated City of Double Horn, Texas and its elected officials. Before the State may file an information in the nature of quo war- ranto, it must show the district court, during a pre-filing hearing, that it has a “prob- able ground” to proceed. Nearly a century of case law provides that a district court must accept the State’s allegations as true during this probable-ground stage, and that the State satisfies the probable-ground standard by alleging facts that state a cause of action. Double Horn asks the Court to ignore that precedent, just as the district court did. But by refusing to accept the State’s allegations as true and by considering the merits of the State’s claim and evidence offered by Double Horn, the district court applied an erroneous legal standard to deny the State’s petition for leave to file. And by sustaining objections to the verification attached to the State’s information and the exhibits to that pleading, the district court deviated from both the Rules of Civil Procedure and precedent, both of which allow the State to allege unverified quo war- ranto facts. The Court should reverse the erroneous judgment of the district court and re- mand this case with instructions to file the information and issue process. Argument I. The State Satisfied the Probable-Ground Standard Necessary to File a Quo Warranto Lawsuit. A. The probable-ground standard requires only allegations giving rise to a cause of action. The State satisfied each of the statutory requirements to file a quo warranto law- suit. The Attorney General represents the State, and he is one of three types of state officials who may file a quo warranto lawsuit. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.002(a)–(b). The Attorney General determined “grounds for the remedy [of quo warranto] exist,” so he “petition[ed] the district court of the proper county . for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto.” Id. § 66.002(a). And the Attorney General demonstrated a “probable ground” for the proceeding, which, once established,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRA Evaluation Charter No. 16626
    PUBLIC DISCLOSURE May 4, 2016 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Central National Bank Charter Number 16626 8320 W. Highway 84, Waco, TX 76712 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 225 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 900, Irving, Texas 75062 NOTE: This document is an evaluation of this institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods consistent with safe and sound operation of the institution. This evaluation is not, nor should it be construed as, an assessment of the financial condition of this institution. The rating assigned to this institution does not represent an analysis, conclusion, or opinion of the federal financial supervisory agency concerning the safety and soundness of this financial institution. Charter Number 16626 INSTITUTION'S CRA RATING: This institution is rated Satisfactory. The Lending Test is rated: Satisfactory. The Community Development Test is rated: Outstanding. Major factors that support this Satisfactory rating include: • The bank’s loan-to-deposit (LTD) ratio is reasonable. • A majority of loan originations and purchases are within the bank’s assessment area (AA). • The distribution of residential and business loans to borrowers of different income levels exhibits reasonable penetration. • The bank’s geographic distribution of residential and business loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) census tracts reflects reasonable dispersion. • The overall level of responsiveness of community development (CD) lending, investments, and services is excellent. 1 Charter Number 16626 Scope of Examination The Performance Evaluation (PE) assesses the bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of the communities in which it operates.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Austin
    OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED JULY 23, 2019 New Issues: Book-Entry-Only System Ratings: Moody’s: “A1” (stable outlook) S&P: “A” (positive outlook) Kroll: “AA-” (stable outlook) (See “OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION – Ratings”) In the opinion of Bracewell LLP, Bond Counsel, under existing law, (i) interest on the 2019A Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and (ii) the 2019A Bonds are not “private activity bonds.” Further, in the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing law, (i) interest on the 2019B Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, except for any period during which a 2019B Bond is held by a person who is a “substantial user” of the facilities financed with the proceeds of the 2019B Bonds or a “related person” to such a “substantial user,” each within the meaning of section 147(a) of the Code and (ii) interest on the 2019B Bonds is an item of tax preference that is includable in alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of determining a taxpayer’s alternative minimum tax liability. See “TAX MATTERS” for a discussion of the opinions of Bond Counsel. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS $16,975,000 $248,170,000 Airport System Revenue Bonds, Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2019A Series 2019B (AMT) Dated: August 1, 2019; Interest to accrue from Date of Initial Delivery Due: As shown on the inside cover page The $16,975,000 City of Austin, Texas Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2019A (the “2019A Bonds”) and the $248,170,000 City of Austin, Texas Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2019B (AMT) (the “2019B Bonds” and, collectively with the 2019A Bonds, the “Bonds”), are limited special obligations of the City of Austin, Texas (the “City”), issued pursuant to the ordinances adopted by the City on June 19, 2019 (the “Ordinances”).
    [Show full text]
  • St. Mark's Medical Office Building Two St
    ST. MARK'S MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING TWO ST. MARK'S PLACE | LA GRANGE, TX 78945 OFFERING MEMORANDUM DISCLAIMER ST. MARK'S MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING Colliers International Brokerage Company (“Broker“) has been retained as the exclusive advisor and broker for this offering. TWO ST. MARK'S PLACE This Offering Memorandum has been prepared by Broker for use by a limited number of parties and does not purport to provide a necessarily LA GRANGE, TX 78945 accurate summary of the Property or any of the documents related thereto, nor does it purport to be all-inclusive or to contain all of the information which prospective Buyers may need or desire. All projections have been developed by Broker and designated sources and are based upon assumptions relating to the general economy, competition, and other factors beyond the control of the Seller and therefore are subject to variation. No representation is made by Broker or the Seller as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein, and nothing contained herein shall be relied on as a promise or representation as to the future performance of the Property. Although the information contained EXCLUSIVE INVESTMENT ADVISORY TEAM herein is believed to be correct, the Seller and its employees disclaim any responsibility for inaccuracies and expect prospective purchasers to exercise independent due diligence in verifying all such information. Further, Broker, the Seller and its employees disclaim any and all liability for representations and warranties, expressed and implied, contained in or omitted from the Offering Memorandum or any other written or oral communication transmitted or made available to the Buyer.
    [Show full text]
  • August 21, 2019
    NEW ISSUE: BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY OFFERING MEMORANDUM Ratings: S&P: PSF Enhanced: “AAA”; Underlying: “AA+” August 21, 2019 Ratings: Fitch: PSF Enhanced: “AAA”; Underlying: “AA+” PSF Guarantee: “Conditionally Approved” (See “RATINGS” and “THE PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND GUARANTEE PROGRAM”.) In the opinion of Bond Counsel (identified below), assuming continuing compliance by the District (defined below) after the date of initial delivery of the Bonds (defined below) with certain covenants contained in the Order (defined below) and subject to the matters set forth under “TAX MATTERS” herein, interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes under existing statutes, regulations, published rulings, and court decisions (1) is not included in gross income of the owners thereof pursuant to section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended to the date of initial delivery of the Bonds, and (2) is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. Additionally, see “THE BONDS - Determination of Interest Rate; Rate Mode Changes” identifying circumstances when an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel is required as a condition for an interest mode conversion. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion as to the effect on the excludability from gross income for federal income tax purposes of any action requiring such an opinion. $14,930,000 EANES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (A political subdivision of the State of Texas located in Travis County, Texas) VARIABLE RATE UNLIMITED TAX SCHOOL BUILDING BONDS, SERIES 2019B INITIAL TERM RATE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS AT A PER ANNUM INITIAL RATE OF 1.75% (PRICED TO YIELD 1.35% TO FIRST OPTIONAL REDEMPTION DATE OF AUGUST 1, 2024) Dated Date: September 1, 2019 (interest will accrue from the Delivery Date) Mandatory Tender Date: August 1, 2025 CUSIP No.
    [Show full text]
  • Plum Creek Kyle Texas
    Plum Creek Kyle, Texas Project Type: Residential Case No: C036013 Year: 2006 SUMMARY Plum Creek is a master-planned community located in Kyle, Texas, approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of Austin. Developed by Benchmark Land Development, it is the first large-scale community in the Austin metropolitan area built according to the principles of new urbanism. At buildout, the 2,200-acre (890-hectare) development will contain up to 8,700 homes, a mixed-use town center, employment districts, and a commuter rail station. FEATURES Master-Planned Community—Large Scale Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian-Friendly Design Traditional Neighborhood Development Plum Creek Kyle, Texas Project Type: Residential Subcategory: Planned Communities Volume 36 Number 13 July–September 2006 Case Number: C036013 PROJECT TYPE Plum Creek is a master-planned community located in Kyle, Texas, approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of Austin. Developed by Benchmark Land Development, it is the first large-scale community in the Austin metropolitan area built according to the principles of new urbanism. At buildout, the 2,200-acre (890-hectare) development will contain up to 8,700 homes, a mixed-use town center, employment districts, and a commuter rail station. LOCATION Outer Suburban SITE SIZE 2,200 acres/890 hectares LAND USES Single-Family Detached Residential, Townhouses, Condominiums, Apartments, Neighborhood Retail Center, Schools, Golf Course, Open Space KEYWORDS/SPECIAL FEATURES Master-Planned Community—Large Scale Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian-Friendly Design Traditional Neighborhood Development PROJECT WEB SITE www.plumcreektx.com DEVELOPER Benchmark Land Development, Inc. Austin, Texas 512-472-7455 www.benchmarktx.net LAND PLANNER TBG Partners, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Two Monitoring Systems for Significant Bridges in Texas
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-04/0-4096-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Evaluation of Two Monitoring Systems for Significant January 2004 Bridges in Texas 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. C. T. Bilich and S. L. Wood Research Report 0-4096-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin Research Project 0-4096 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research Report (9/01- 8/03) Research and Technology Implementation Office P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Texas Department of Transportation 16. Abstract Two monitoring systems for bridges were evaluated for use by the Texas Department of Transportation. The first system was designed to increase the quantitative information obtained during a routine inspection of a steel bridge. The miniature, battery-powered data acquisition system selected for study has the ability to record a single channel of strain data and use a rainflow counting algorithm to evaluate the raw data. This system was considered to be particularly useful for evaluating fracture critical bridges. The second system provided long-term monitoring of bridge displacements using global positioning systems (GPS).
    [Show full text]
  • Goldstripe Darter) in a Single Tributary on the Periphery of Its Range Author(S): Virginia L.E
    Persistence of Etheostoma parvipinne (Goldstripe Darter) in a Single Tributary on the Periphery of Its Range Author(s): Virginia L.E. Dautreuil, Cody A. Craig and Timothy H. Bonner Source: Southeastern Naturalist, 15(3):N28-N32. Published By: Eagle Hill Institute DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/058.015.0310 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1656/058.015.0310 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. 2016 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 15, No. 3 Notes of the V.L.E.Southeastern Dautreuil, C.A. Naturalist, Craig, and T.H. Bonner Issue 15/3, 2016 Persistence of Etheostoma parvipinne (Goldstripe Darter) in a Single Tributary on the Periphery of its Range Virginia L.E. Dautreuil1,2,*, Cody A. Craig1, and Timothy H. Bonner1 Abstract - We report the occurrence of a single population of Etheostoma parvipinne (Goldstripe Darter) in a small, acidic, spring-fed stream within the Colorado River drainage following an extended period of below-average precipitation (January–September 2011), a wildland fire (September 2011), and subsequent debris and sediment flows (November 2011–May 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Training for All-Hazards Emergency Planning, Preparation, and Response SYNTHESIS 468
    Job No. XXXX Pantone 202 C 92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPINE COPY = 14 pts ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Washington, D.C. 20001 500 Fifth Street, N.W. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NCHRP SYNTHESIS 468 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH NCHRP PROGRAM Interactive Training for All-Hazards Emergency Planning, Preparation, and Response SYNTHESIS 468 Interactive Training for All- Hazards Emergency Planning, Preparation, and Response for Maintenance and Operations Field Personnel Maintenance and Operations Field Personnel A Synthesis of Highway Practice TRB NEED SPINE WIDTH TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications: OFFICERS A4A Airlines for America Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing AAAE American Association of Airport Executives Vice Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Studies, University of California, Davis ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act MEMBERS APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers VICTORIA A. ARROYO, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers Washington, DC ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials SCOTT E. BENNETT, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock ATA American Tr ucking Associations DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Tr uck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program JAMES M.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of AUSTIN, TEXAS (Travis, Williamson and Hays Counties) Statement Constitute an Offer to Sell Or the Solicitation $203,055,000* $143,740,000*
    PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED JANUARY 5, 2017 New Issue: Book-Entry-Only System Ratings: Standard & Poor’s: “__” Moody’s: “__” (See “OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION – Ratings”) In the opinion of McCall, Parkhurst & Horton L.L.P., Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds will be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes under statutes, regulations, published rulings and court decisions existing on the date hereof, except as explained under “TAX MATTERS” in this document. Interest on the Series 2017B Bonds will be an item of tax preference for purpose of determining the alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations under section 57(a)(5) of the Code. See “TAX MATTERS” in this document for a discussion of Bond Counsel’s opinion and certain collateral federal tax consequences. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS (Travis, Williamson and Hays Counties) Statement constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation $203,055,000* $143,740,000* n under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. Airport System Revenue Bonds, Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A Series 2017B (AMT) Interest to accrue from Date of Initial Delivery Due: As shown on the inside cover page The $203,055,000* City of Austin, Texas Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A (the “Series 2017A Bonds”) and the $143,740,000* City of Austin, Texas Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2017B (AMT) (the “Series 2017B Bonds”) (and together with the Series 2017A Bonds, collectively referred to as the “Bonds”), are limited special obligations of the City of Austin, Texas (the “City”), issued pursuant to the ordinances adopted by the City on December 15, 2016 (the “Ordinances”).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for the West Travis County Public Utility Agency Raw Water Transmission Main
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST TRAVIS COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN Travis County, Texas January 2017 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 On Behalf of: West Travis County Public Utility Agency 12117 Bee Cave Road, Bldg. 3, Ste. 120 Bee Cave, Texas 78738 By: aci consulting 1001 Mopac Circle Austin, Texas 78746 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Proposed Project, Plan Area, Permit Area, permit duration, and Covered Activities ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Plan Area ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Permit Area .................................................................................................................... 2 2.4 Permit Duration ............................................................................................................. 3 2.5 Description of Covered Activities ............................................................................... 3 3.0 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chestnut Commons
    Click images to view full size Chestnut Commons Austin, Texas Project Type: Mixed Residential Volume 38 Number 23 October–December 2008 Case Number: C038023 PROJECT TYPE Situated in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in Austin, Texas, Chestnut Commons is a transit-oriented infill community featuring 32 cottage-style residences and 32 for-sale flats above garages. This housing typology— smaller-than-average homes arranged to maximize density—has the advantage of making homeownership more affordable, with initial sales prices ranging from $149,000 to $260,000. The developers of Chestnut Commons— locally based Momark Development, LLC, and Benchmark Land Development— donate half of the project’s profits (beyond an initial 20 percent gross profit threshold) to the nonprofit Austin Community Foundation, resulting in a total contribution of over $1.1 million toward community development in the city. LOCATION Central City SITE SIZE 3.89 acres/1.57 hectares LAND USES Single-Family Detached Residential, Condominiums KEYWORDS/SPECIAL FEATURES For-Sale Housing Mixed Residential Workforce Housing PROJECT ADDRESS 601 Miriam Avenue Austin, Texas WEB SITE www.austinchestnut.com DEVELOPERS Momark Development, LLC Austin, Texas 512-391-1789 www.momarkdevelopment.com Benchmark Land Development Austin, Texas 512-472-7455 www.benchmarktx.net BUILDER Armadillo Homes San Antonio, Texas 210-662-0066 ARCHITECT * some assembly required 512-467-2888 PLANNER Bosse & Turner Associates Austin, Texas 512-472-7332 www.btaaustin.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TBG Partners Austin, Texas 512-327-1011 www.tbg-inc.com GENERAL DESCRIPTION Mixing 32 small two-story, for-sale detached single-family houses and 32 one-bedroom flats built over garages, Chestnut Commons is a transit-oriented infill project in a diverse and gentrifying neighborhood a little over a mile (1.6 km) east of downtown Austin, Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • WTCPUA Habitat Conservation Plan
    HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE WEST TRAVIS COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN Travis County, Texas February 2018 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 On Behalf of: West Travis County Public Utility Agency 12117 Bee Cave Road, Bldg. 3, Ste. 120 Bee Cave, Texas 78738 By: aci consulting 1001 Mopac Circle Austin, Texas 78746 aci Project No.: 27-14-081 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Proposed Project, Plan Area, Permit Area, and Covered Activities ......................... 2 2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Plan Area ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Permit Area .................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Description of Covered Activities ............................................................................... 7 3.0 Species Addressed by the Habitat Conservation Plan ............................................... 9 3.1 Covered Species - Golden-cheeked Warbler ........................................................... 13 3.2 Other Federally Listed Species in Travis County ..................................................
    [Show full text]