Travis County Commissioners Court
October 13, 2009,
Item 21
21, consider and take appropriate action regarding request from the city of Austin to participate in the comprehensive planning process, and we have been asked to postpone action on this item but to pull it up and discuss it today.
>> I requested that delay of action I guess basically because there was still some uncertainty on some of the things here.
i know that the city provided us with the list, I think, that came from -- from the city manager.
and, of course, we all probably had a chance to go through that list, but my concern is still in the interest of what took place here a few weeks ago when we had councilmember cole and I can't remember the other young lady that testified before court on the city's comprehensive plan and the direction they were going, and my question at that time was I felt that the court should have an equal role in partnership, I guess, with the city as we look not only at the city of Austin through the e.t.j.
area, the unincorporated area throughout the county.
we have about 21 other municipalities other than the city of Austin.
so we have in our own right, I guess, the intent and interest of serving or dealing with other entities other than the city of Austin in such way as far as how to come up with land use plans.
now, the list that we have, I looked at that list I think about 11-name list, list of suggested persons that the city of Austin has asked us to consider to be placed on their board, I guess, to look at the comprehensive plan for their e.t.j.
and, of course, I think some of these persons are probably within the unincorporated area, and I guess they all are in the unincorporated area of Travis County.
but my concern is far reaching month so than just these names.
i hope that when we deal with it as far as names, I would like to have the right to choose who I feel will serve precinct 1 as far as a comprehensive land use plan.
and you know, even those these have come through a recommended deal, but the charge -- well, the recommendation of the thing that I remember and recall very well when the city came before the Commissioners court with this comprehensive plan was that I asked them to ask the colleagues, the representation here from the city, to ask their colleagues would the city have any problem with the county having equal representation, especially when it comes out of the jurisdiction of the city limits of Austin.
because that's all e.t.j.
and it's all unincorporated area.
and, of course, I have not received a response yet from the city of Austin saying oh, we have no problem.
what I do not want to see is we come in as a subservient or a step -- cinderella-type situation where the county doesn't have an equal say in what goes on.
you say, Commissioner Davis, why are you saying all of these things?
well, I think there's several reasons why I'm saying all these things, and I'm looking at the history of what has gone on out in the e.t.j.
of precinct 1, for an example, in eastern Travis County, period.
there's been some very -- some things that have been placed out there that have basically been -- I guess unacceptable to the residents of precinct 1.
i can speak for that area.
i can't speak for precinct 4, but I can speak for precinct 1.
unacceptable things that have come out there.
and, of course, the city, one of the latest things that they were trying to do not too long ago was have a landfill, a new landfill placed on the old -- city of Austin utility site, 2,000 acres, but place a brand new landfill there.
and if that's part of their comprehensive plan, my goodness gracious, that's not what we want.
so I think it's very critical that we pay attention to what the city is doing.
that's just one example.
there are several examples.
we have the
>> [indiscernible] in the e.t.j.
right across from gus garcia middle school, a brand new school, above ground storage tanks, fuel storage tanks.
and in my mind, that's not a safe thing to do; however, it's in the e.t.j.
of the city and they had a chance to look at it just like we did.
so those kind of things, I think just by example, just by example, that I think are very critical why the county should have an equal say because of the fact that there has been unwelcome things that have come into eastern Travis County that the residents are -- they are just appalled.
how can this happen in our precinct.
and it's basically dealing with a lot of land use issues.
and, of course, it appears that -- it appears that precinct 1, precinct 4 is getting the -- the bad end of all of these things.
so that is a very legitimate concern for me and the constituents and the persons, citizens I represent, the residents of precinct 1, and they have expressed themselves very adequately on many, many occasions right here in this Commissioners court.
expansion of landfills, new landfills.
you know, I don't want to go through the whole scenario, but I got quite a few examples.
secondly is that according to legislation, state statute under house bill 1445, for example, there is a relationship under title 30 with the city of Austin and Travis County.
we are try to do and work within those constraints, but sometimes we have difficulty in those kind of things.
so my concern is even up under house bill 1445 and also 1204, which is a construction plan of all these things that the city and county must work together in.
will this particular land use plan be outside of the dictates of 1445, outside of the dictates of what -- of house bill 1204, or will it be all inclusive?
i have no idea, but since we are partners in that particular legislation, it appears that we ought to be partners in any land use opportunity that is brought before Travis County.
just by state statute.
and, of course, there are other things that we're still working on that said yes, Travis County, you must work with the city of Austin, but that's not only the city of Austin.
what the state has told us was that those relationships must be with all the other cities.
it's just not the city of Austin, but the relationship I just mentioned under 1204 and under house bill 1445 has to be established with all the other entities out there.
so it just appears to me if the city -- why the city has not reresponded to the request of having the county involved in this, especially outside the jurisdiction of the city limits of Austin, that we can't have an equal say in this thing as far as being equal partners.
and I think I expressed myself in the way that the citizens and the residents of eastern Travis County who have continued to holler and scream about land use and authority and, of course, the state legislature has a lot to do with that, but that they have allowed us to work with, I don't want to undermine it by allowing one entity to -- to be out -- well, to not have equal footing with the other entity.
especially in the unincorporated -- in e.t.j.
area that we're discussing here as far as the land use plan is concerned.
so that's my concern which I'm pressing today and maybe the county we need to maybe come with our own land use plan, which I think is something that we need to do.
because the city is going to go head on with their land use plan regardless of what I think we're going to do here one way or the other.
but in the meantime, I think we need to look at this in a way whereby we can have equal footing.
and I just believe in equal footing because, again, the city of Austin is only one city of many municipalities within Travis County.
so any response to what the suggestion that I'm just laying out or what I just laid out?
>> I have a comment.
>> okay.
>> thank you for your comments, Commissioner Davis.
first of all, in reference to the last time that this issue came up before the court, I think that there was a little bit of confusion on both the county and the city of what the goals and objectives were to be addressed, and there's been some conversations between staff on both sides to clarify that.
and at that point in time, their appointment process at the city, as I understand it, was not clearly defined to their -- for their working and advisory group.
and I know that some of us were asked early on to try to make some recommendations to the city for appointments to the e.t.j.
areas.
since that time, they have come back and talked with us and said we really like Travis County to make their own appointments.
and I believe that the list that we received from them and the resumes or the application forms were not a list that they were recommending that we appoint from, but rather they were just passing over to us what they had accumulated in that early process.
and that we can look to that and built our own list for our appointments.
i think that this is a good step forward in trying to work with the city of Austin.
i do believe that in the unincorporated areas that we should consider moving forward and working on our own comprehensive plan because it is important to just what we do every day here at Travis County.
but I think that this is a good step forward in working with city of Austin.
and that we should develop a process for those appointments.
>> I agree.
it is a good step forward, and I also want to point out that the scope of the city of Austin's comprehensive plan includes 10 different items.
only one of which is future land use.
and on every one of those items, Travis County, of course, and the region would prophet through our cooperation, the city of Austin and Travis County cooperating.
but I do want to recognize that some of the elements in the scope of their comprehensive plan are uniquely city of Austin elements.
so I am not as concerned that we don't have equal representation on the comp plan, and I also am very heartened to see the level of collaboration that we are achieving on the 2035 plan at campo with regard to land use.
so I think a lot of what we desire in terms of a coordinated effort between the city and the county regarding land use can come through campo, as well as through our own Travis County comprehensive planning efforts with regard to land use and transportation, green space, and then other elements of long-range planning for us.
>> well, since that conversation that we've had with the city with councilmember cole, and I cannot think of that other lady's name that was here.
>> sue edwards.
>> sue edwards.
since that conversation, and I asked personally to let -- for them to let me know what's going on with that.
and as of today, now, I can go back through my e-mails and I can go back and talk to my staff, but as of today as I sit in this chair, no one has even contacted me, Commissioner Huber, as they have contacted you.
and maybe Commissioner Eckhardt.
and that bothers me tremendously because of the fact I brought the concern up about encroachment into things that we're dealing with out there in precinct 1, especially the unfavorable and the unpopular things that have come out of a lot of these things.
and when we're talking about whatever it may fall into the subject matter of, whether it be transportation, this, that, all these other kind of things, if you open it up whereby they are predicting to put -- an example, a landfill, a very new landfill at that old site out there near webberville, that is especially a big concern of mine and every other resident that leaves east of i-35 because we have been getting the bad of all the things that basically happened in this county has been coming east of ih-35.
now, again, they haven't contacted me as they have contacted you, and I wonder why.
why haven't they?
i'm the one that's asked for what we're talking about here.
i'm the one requested them to contact me and let me know what's going on.
but as of today they haven't done it.
so those kind of things concern me as a representative of precinct 1 and the folks that reside in precinct 1 and how we have been treated, I think, with disparate treatment.
you may say well, it's that or that, but I think we need to be equal partners, as I stated before.
otherwise, you know, I don't think it's going to be treated with any type of justice.
and that's my concern.
i'm very suspicious of this.
and I say again we need to come up with our own comprehensive plan.
i know the city is going to do their thing, but I want to be mindful of the city is that the things I have brought forth today and are still in consideration because really, as I sit here in this chair, the landfill issue, the new landfill issue is still alive and well.
now, where they will locate it, I do not know, the city of Austin.
but it is alive and well, folks.
so I'm expressing those concerns.
>> Commissioner Davis, are you willing to recruit for applicants to the city of Austin's comprehensive plan committee from precinct 1?
>> well, it depends on how many they left out.
equal footing is my point.
>> what say we can have four free of charge?
>> I'm wondering if it's the sense of the court to have one from each precinct or have a different kind of distribution?
>> well, I know that they had a number of 11 people here on their list that came from -- I would like to thank the city manager for providing the list, I guess to the judge and, judge, came to it -- but anyway, providing with us the list of who they thought would be good to complete their membership list on the comprehensive plan approach within the e.t.j.
and what I was thinking maybe -- I don't know, you know, two for each one of us, that will be 10.
>> Commissioner Davis, I believe that is just the list that they received of applicants from the e.t.j.
it's not a recommendation on their part.
they just wanted us to have that list that they had already received as applicants in our pool for whatever process we develop.
>> and they expressed that they were having difficulty recruiting individuals from the e.t.j.
and that's when they were asking for our help in recruiting applicants from the e.t.j.
for these four spots specifically.
>> it's unfortunate you guys are getting information like that and I don't.
that's kind of --
>> I did ask for suggestions from your office.
>> but I'm not -- I'm saying the city of Austin.
>> that's right.
>> I can say --
>>
>> [indiscernible] I'm -- on the big city of Austin.
we're not going to take action today and there's some things I need to consider and that's why I wanted it delayed because there's still a lot of uneasiness with me.
and it may be with other members of the court maybe still uneasy, I don't really know, you know, what your comfort level is.
but I know I'm still uneasy because of those things that I brought up and the -- and the history of terrible things coming east of ih-35.
it's been -- it's a track record and I can show it to you.
there's no doubt.
so I'm concerned about whether a track record will continue to still go in the same direction when it comes to city of Austin.
example, landfill.
i'm not going to go into that because I know that's still alive and well right now.
the resolution passed by the city council, supported by the city council to establish a new landfill in precinct 1.
so those are real and live things.
so why shouldn't we have -- and the question is if we don't have equal representation, then the question is the city needs to tell me why we can't have equal partnership in this thing.
because I think the other cities as we go through our comprehensive plan, if the court decides to take the county's comprehensive plan and deal with all of the other cities, I'm quite sure the cities will say, well, we would like to have equal say in what you are doing.
>> mr.
geiselman.
any additional comments?
>> yes.
first of all, we did ask for these appointments and they were good enough to give us four.
we asked for five, but it's a good step forward.
we do need to participate in the city of Austin's comprehensive planning process.
we each have independent authority outside the corporate area in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
the city is going to proceed with or without us.
i would like to think it would be a better plan if we participated.
i don't think that necessarily means we should not conduct our own planning effort for the entire unincorporated area.
there's a lot of area outside the city of Austin e.t.j.
which is still county jurisdiction.
we share jurisdiction with 22 other cities.
i think it is important for the county to have a policy on development within the unincorporated area.
and we may not have the resources that the city of Austin has in terms of developing a comprehensive plan, which means we ought to be more strategic in how we use the resources that we have.
it may be that adverse uses, land uses, are something that are strategic to us and that we want to influence the policies in not only the city of Austin but any other entity that has jurisdiction within the unincorporated area.
maybe state agencies, maybe municipalities, but I think it would be important for this body to have its own set of urban development policies or land development policies that you can turn to when you are in forum such as campo or city of Austin or any other forum dealing this type of issue and say when it comes to adverse uses, here is our policy.
when it comes to transportation, here is our policy.
so I don't think these are the appointments of these members to the city comprehensive plan process is a bad thing.
i think we ought to do that.
there ought to be some overlap between the development of policy of Travis County and the city of Austin.
hopefully we can come to terms where we differ that that we'll both be rowing together in the e.t.j.
which will make it so much easier if we were both implementing policies that supported each other.
so I don't think -- I think we ought to proceed.
i would recommend the court do proceed to make appointments to this advisory committee.
and also proceed to develop a comprehensive plan for the entire unincorporated area.
>> well, I think we ought to do that, the only thing I don't want to overlook Commissioner Davis' comments because I think there is -- there's a lot of truth to that.
especially with, you know, the real obvious example.
and it's been throughout the years that we've been, you know, serving on this Commissioners court that certain things come up.
and you know, I mean landfills.
they are right there, you know, for us to see.
and that is the largest issue that looms out, and so people east of i-35 do have a certain take on being bullied by the city of Austin.
and that's -- that's a reality.
and the gentrification.
the -- that's another issue.
and it really does loom out there, you know.
and so where -- whereas we have been able to reach agreements with the city of Austin on other issues that we have in common, like e.m.s., like the central booking, like the public health interlocal, there are some areas of common -- of commonality.
so I think is it possible to enter into this process with a real careful approach about just maybe the county researching what it's going to get or look at and what the results are going to be as a result of working with the city.
but I think the city needs to be put on notice that -- that the concerns that we have are not just political.
you know, we're not being political here.
we're trying to be realistic in addressing some of those issues that people who live in the e.t.j.
just outside of the city of Austin and people who prefer to live out in the county versus in the city of Austin or in any other city, and that for those folks who want to live outside of the city of Austin, for instance, and live in the unincorporated areas of Travis County, we have those interests to protect as a county because that's where people prefer to live.
and so it almost sounds like if we're going to enter into this, it has to be cautionary.
and because I don't want to dismiss Commissioner Davis' concerns.
i think they are real.
and the folks that call his office I'm sure call him more than they call me, but there's always that caution of not being want to go get run over by anybody.
and -- but I think we need to pursue our own plan for the unincorporated area and I think we need to continue working on the one-stop shop that we have with the city of Austin and strengthen that and maybe bring more issues she maybe as a result of this landing process, issues can be brought forward to the one-stop shop and see how we can better deal with those.
and most of them are probably going to have to do with growth.
but we certainly have a lot of assets that we can bring to the table.
the open space, all the trails and our bond elections, what those have resulted in, and parks, and bring all these issues to the table so it's not like we're going to be helpless if we come to the table, though, but we can bring all those assets.
but I think joe geiselman ought to bring those forward as well to the process, this comprehensive planning process.
>> bring what forward?
>> all of the assets that we have already as a result of our bond elections, open space, parks, local roads that we have addressed to -- to make life better for those people who prefer to live in the unincorporated area of Travis County.
so it's not like we're coming to the table with nothing.
we have a lot to offer.
and -- but I think those issues that rise to the top as being extraordinarily difficult to deal with, I think those need to be put on the table right away and let's not wait for the process to get to the issue, let's just go ahead and put the issue on the table.
would that help?
>> mr.
pena.
>> I'll try, judge.
judge, Commissioners, gus pena.
proud native east Austinite, 2327, east fifth street, among the unneeded, unwarranted and not wanted entities was, of course, the -- where capital metro's -- is located right now, the slaughterhouse.
in front of our house we had our own tank farm, which my dad tried to close, may he rest in peace, in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
they finally were successful in the early 70s.
we had a mattress making company, a brick making company that spewed contaminants.
the ground was brown from the tank form.
lord knows what we have, the penas is ramone's family from our bodies.
you look in precinct 4, you see a lot of poverty, a lot of homes that need to be renovated.
you see a lot of people being moved by what you call and everybody else calls gentrification.
we need, not to be reactionary, but proactive work before these things have a negative impact on our community.
i can still tell you my cousins live on east fourth and fifth street.
what has been done to our community.
a lost special interest has taken over our community.
it is not our community anymore, but you know what?
it's called a social revolution.
it's a peaceful revolution that people are looking at now to undertake to take back our community.
our kids need quality education.
we talk about being an inclusive process at the city of Austin, it wasn't.
i was there.
i looked at the list of people who were approved.
a lot needs to be done, and I'm speaking specifically of precinct 4, Commissioner Davis.
have I a lot of relatives and friends throughout the county, precinct 1, precinct 4 especially.
my mom lives in your precinct, Commissioner Eckhardt.
but there is a lot of poverty and problems in our area also, Commissioner Gomez, that need to be improved and it has not improved.
i remember when you were on then Commissioner moya's staff.
i used to come to your office all the time to bring issues up to Commissioner moya.
let's just not talk.
let's walk the walk and just not talk the talk because a lat needs to be done in our precinct also.
there's a lot of poverty in all your precincts, not just 1 and 4.
i'll leave it at that.
let's have representation that is inclusive and knowledgeable of the problems that get things done base we're sick and tired of talk.
>> this item will be on the court's agenda next week for action.
between now and then, let's think about the following.
by the way, I did distribute the backup that I got from the city manager to the entire court at the same time.
all of it should have been delivered.
in the letter, the city manager says we should contact assistant city manager sue edwards if we have questions or need her to appear in the Commissioners court.
so do we want to extend that invitation and ask her to be here next week?
>> judge, I don't see why not.
i think it would be very appropriate since she was in the original deal with councilwoman cole that came before the court.
>> why don't we ask her and ask her to bring one of the consultants with her.
last night they had an open house, and at that open hours there were supposed to be a comprehensive plan fact book distributed.
so joe, why don't we ask for a copy of that.
or do you want me to be bold enough to do it?
>> I'll take care of it.
>> okay.
and if they won't listen to me, let them know the Commissioners court makes the request.
now, we should think about how to make those four appointments they've offered if we plan to take them up on it.
there are three ways we can identity.
the county judge can make all the appointments.
or the county judge can make zero and each court member can make one.
that's four.
or we can try to get a resident from each precinct that we all approve.
let's think about which one makes sense and is fair to everybody between now and next Tuesday.
>> there's just -- they are just allowing for four on that?
>> I did kind of say you know, we're five members of the court.
the response I got was I can go back and ask for that fifth one, but -- and I said, well, don't worry about it then.
i'm pretty open on it, though.
but I think we ought to give this some discussion.
i don't know that we really just ought to be out and get four individuals.
seems to me we ought to get four individuals who meet certain criteria.
it really can be informal, but it ought to help us, you see what I'm saying?
i think we ought to give some thought to the kinds of individuals that we would like to see represent us in the city's comprehensive planning process.
and finally, joe, we may as well just have a followup discussion of the Travis County comprehensive planning effort.
generally what we think it will take to put that in place, I'm tempted to say expeditiously, but within a reasonable time and a process that not too quick for us to do it right, but where we kind of proceed with the delivery of free to speak.
how's that?
we will have an agenda item word to do enable us to cover the different parts.
okay?
it's been a good discussion today, y'all.
i reluctantly suggest that we move on.
thank you.
now that does get to us executive session, doesn't it?
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, October 13, 2009 2:00 PM
