Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 7, 2010,
Item A3
A 3 is to receive an update and provide feedback from the city of Austin on the imagine Austin comprehensive plan and the upcoming third round of community forums.
>> good morning, judge.
>> good morning.
>> Commissioners.
I think the last time we briefed you was in April.
thank you for inviting us back.
I hope that means we didn't overstay our welcome the last time.
we'll try to keep it brief.
if I could get the slide.
am I doing something wrong here?
our presentation is going to talk about comprehensive plans, the plan we're using in Austin.
david is going to talk about the scenarios and some of the indicators we're developing for the public to evaluate the general growth scenario.
that's the stage we're in right now.
and then the next step is the upcoming meetings next week through beginning of October.
and the next steps beyond that.
just a little bit about comprehensive plan.
comprehensive plan is an anchoring document to provide general direction for the entire community.
it deals with the future of growth and development policies in a general sense so that things are integrated.
and it's really looking at integrating more detailed plans, the city's policies, our capital improvements budgets and all our regulations.
so it's the center document, it's the pivot, the long-term future.
our city charter, the Austin city charter is very specific in terms of a comprehensive plan.
it says that the 10:00 elements that are listed on the left-hand side of the screen, future land use, transportation, bridge, environment, parks and open spaces, housing, public buildings, economic development and health and human services, have to be included in a draft as elements in the plan.
it also says that Austin can have additional elements and the city council with the recommendation from our planning commission recommended that this comprehensive plan also contain historic and cultural preservation, children's, families and education, arts, culture and creativity and urban design as additional elements so that will be the content of this comprehensive plan when it's completed at the end of 2011.
three phases, first is getting ready to plan and I think you are going through that phase with your effort to do a plan for the unincorporated area of Travis County.
second phase, we're in the middle of the second phase, and that's setting general direction for the plan, the policy direction for the plan.
and then putting the plan together itself, which is scheduled to start in 2011.
the themes that the city council set for this effort is community engagement, and that has been extensive and we're going to talk to you about that.
sustainability, that's sort of an overarching theme for this plan and implementation.
no one wants a shelf plan.
this has been a theme from the beginning.
I said we would talk a little about our public participation.
we opened up with three questions, what are Austin's strengths, what are Austin's weaknesses, and where do we want to be as a city in 2039.
over 6,000 participants actually answered those three questions, those three open-ended questions, and that was used as a basis for a vision statement.
and I think you saw a draft of that and it has now been endorsed by our planning commission and our city council.
I have copies if you want a final copy.
we went from the general vision to a more -- a little more specific exercise where we asked people, let's say we continue to grow about like we have been growing, and let's say we add three-quarters of a million population by 2039, where should they live?
we gave them that challenge in the form of chips and we had a giant map in front of people and actually 457 people created 63 future maps of where they thought Austin should put that population and employment in the future.
so it was general question for the public what's your vision for Austin on the ground.
and those 63 maps were used to create four alternatives, alternative scenarios of the future.
and a trend setter was put together.
our staff put together -- let's say we keep growing the way we have been growing.
that was the trend.
so we have four alternatives to the trend, which is the subject of the upcoming meetings that are going to start next Monday.
so with that, I'm going to ask david to talk a little about the four alternatives that are being evaluated.
>> okay, thanks, garner.
I won't get into a lot of detail about these.
it was quite a process synthesizing and looking at common patterns and all those maps took several days, but there were some common patterns that emerged and this is for the study area included the city of Austin and its e.t.j.
and as garner said it was based on the best available projections of what growth is likely to be over the next 20 years which is 750,000 new residents and also 300,000 new jobs.
as a baseline, if you will, a trend scenario, as garner said, was produced, and these maps are showing them.
if you want to get into details, we would be happy to, but obviously there is detail involved here.
basically that trend shows growth as a momentum of growth if current trends continue.
and what we did actually for each of the scenarios is develop a base of indicators which basically measure, well, what are the likely impacts.
so we're going to give you some samples and there was probably about 40 plus of these indicators.
here's samples for the trend growth.
45% of new development and mix of jobs and residences.
46% of residents live within a quarter mile of trance it.
the vision statement this a real focus on transit and trying to move folks away from dependence on cars, having access, this is one of the indicators, again, transit trips per day.
issues of delay and congestion.
in this case 3.5 days of delay per year.
travel delays.
and also infrastructure costs were measured for each, a combination of transportation and water and sewer infrastructure.
again, these are very general approximations but it gives a sense of what the impacts would be under this scenario.
so we're going to go through briefly through the next series.
the first is scenario a, which we call the distributed scenario which is similar in the trend growth is largely distributed throughout the study area, throughout the city and e.t.j.
so if you go to the next one, I'm not going to dwell on any of these, you can see some of the indicators.
more development and mixed in jobs and residences.
I believe slightly lower infrastructure costs.
again, I won't go through these in detail, but it gives you the sense we were measuring and comparing impacts across the different alternatives.
the next one was interesting.
this was called -- we called it crescent scenario largely because there were folks that looked and said we need to protect the water resource areas so the west of the study area, so let's look at focusing growth in the eastern part of the study area which is why it looks a little like a crescent.
the next slide shows the indicators related to that in terms of mixed use development.
these figures are starting to inch up, which is kind of interesting, or inch down in terms of infrastructure cost.
next one is the centers indicator, center scenario, which is similar to campo in that it focuses growth in centers and designated centers largely throughout the study area.
if you go through the indicators, there's higher number of mixed use jobs and residences, 53.6% of residents living within a quarter mile of transit, which is significant increase over the trend.
delays of -- days of delay.
infrastructure costs.
again, a little lower than you are seeing in some of the other alternatives.
and the fourth and final, we called the linear scenario because it really focused more or less on a spine, which is a current development pattern and also growth trend to the north in Austin, going north-south, with some center.
so it was actually the most compact of the alternatives.
if you go to this one and look at some of the indicators, it has a higher percentage of new development in mixed jobs and residences.
it has slightly more residents within -- residents within a quarter mile of transit than some of the other under indicators.future growth was moe concentrated, lower than the other alternatives.
so this is a sampling of what we've been looking at and the idea is get the information out through workshops, surveys, questionnaires, giving the background information, here's what the evaluation told about the different scenarios and out of this what does the public like, what don't they like, the idea ending with a preferred scenario which is likely to be a combination of one or more scenarios.
and that preferred scenario moving forward I think is the next slide, along with a vision statement that's been endorsed by council based on the input from the previous public meetings will set the stage for drafting the comprehensive plan which is scheduled to start the beginning of this year -- next year and take through the rest of 2011 with the idea of having a plan ready for view and adoption by the beginning of 2012.
so maybe garner, you can close by just talking about the schedule for the upcoming public meetings.
>> yes, and judge and Commissioners, we do have handouts that -- for you if you need them that list these meeting dates that start next Monday, next Monday, the inaugural meeting where people come in and look at the scenarios, look at the information that's been developed, give you go feedback regarding the scenarios.
a real important thing we want to emphasize if people want to weigh in and say they like one of them, that's fine.
it's not the primary question we're asking them.
we're really asking them to do deeper analysis to tell us what they like and don't like about the scenarios so we can use that to create a preferred scenario.
and we don't envision the preferred to be identical to one of the four being tested.
so that information has been confused -- confusing with the public.
we want to get that out.
if you can help us, we would appreciate it.
but the opportunities to do that exercise are offered nine times.
and it doesn't end then.
we will have the same surveys online, people will be able to go online throughout October, possibly even into November and go -- do the survey as well as give us comments on the scenarios.
>> how do you get this information out to the unincorporated area and the e.t.j., the county's e.t.j., that share it with the city of Austin, how do you get that information to them to make sure that whatever comes forward we have the type of participation that is actually bona fide and genuine, same thing, that this is input that has actually come from the people that actually reside out there in the city's e.t.j.
to share it with Travis County?
how is it going to be done?
>> good question, Commissioner Davis.
we did put a flier into the Austin energy utility bills.
we are prepared to actually put a 12-page insert into the Austin statesman, which we think has the broadest circulation in the e.t.j.
as well as the rest of Austin.
we are going to be putting ads in the Austin chronicle.
we obviously are on imagineaustin.net if people want to go online.
we're making a huge effort this round to -- to get the word out.
we really want maximum participation.
we recognize that we have been underrepresented in the e.t.j.
so any help that you can provide us would be greatly appreciated.
>> well, well, we'll do what we can.
of course, we have persons that serve as leaders and team representatives that serve on the committees and also in the meetings, you know.
of course, I just want to make sure they are heard as far as the concerns.
I don't want it muffled because we have legitimate concerns out in the e.t.j.
of course, shared with Travis County and also the city of Austin.
I don't know if you have on your website, for an example, the situation where -- whereby the persons that need to participate in the e.t.j.
component of this is actually alerted.
I don't really know that.
if that is the fact as far as how you have the website set up now, I don't know if that's the case or not.
there's several things that I want to make sure is included in this process because on one hand we see your plans that are basically talking about a lot of innercity stuff.
and then on the other hand when it comes to e.t.j., it's not as well represented so it just appears this is an Austin plan, period, and that's no good.
if you would like I think the full participation of where we're trying to do.
an example, include maybe in your map some of the things that we're working on right now, some of the concerns that we have right now.
an example, the whisper valley is an example where we know the city is maybe participating in this, however, I want to make sure that those kind of concerns are addressed in that particular scenario and others with those subdivisions.
and let me say this too while I'm at it.
precinct 1 has about 241 total square miles and of that a little -- 160 some odd square miles in the unincorporated area.
that's significant.
precinct 3 has about 300 or something or more in the unincorporated area out of the total of a little more than 500 square miles.
of course, precinct 2 has the less of all of us.
I think it's 80 something, I don't recall, unincorporated area.
and, of course, precinct 4 was something like about 100, I think, out in the unincorporated area opposed to a little more than 100 of the total square miles of that particular precinct.
so that means to me that there's a lot of potential as far as growth, a lot of situation that we need to look at in the future development of this particular operation.
so that means to me also that it's very important that we get that participation level at some point whether it's transportation, drainage and a whole lot of things we need to put on the table up front to make sure that those concerns are addressed.
we have folks that have been involved, but it appears to me that their voices aren't being heard.
and that bothers me and that disturbs me very much.
especially when I have representatives there that we have chosen to go forward.
and, of course, the full gamut of the things, it's almost like it's a city thing other than a partnership thing and I'm trying to get away from that.
y'all are going to have to help us on that.
I know you are asking me help, I'm asking to you help me and the persons that live in the unincorporated area to hear their voice and hear what they are saying.
because I get the complaints that you are not listening.
so I want to make sure that happens.
I think we have a representative here the other day that may speak to that point.
I don't know what they are going to say, but I know they have concerns and they brought those to my attention.
so I just want to make sure that hits the bullseye.
otherwise what we're doing is just blowing bubbles here.
in my opinion, when it comes to Travis County, who I'm employed by Travis County, so I want to make sure I represent the interests of Travis County.
of course, I'm trying my best to do that.
so I'm just trying to lay it out to let you know where I'm coming from.
that way there won't be no misunderstanding in not the last-ditch effort, the last third phase of this thing as far as letting folks know what's actually going on and how we can be more involved in this process.
so that's just part of my comments at this time.
I will have others, but that's just part of it.
so I hope y'all can digest what I'm saying and if you have any questions, you can ask me.
>> I think I'm hearing you, but let me see if I can para phrase what I think I heard.
>> I hope I made myself clear.
>> you're wishing for the planning process to get into the details of problems that the e.t.j.
area, the extraterritorial jurisdiction is actually experiencing and that is where we're headed.
we have very broad growth scenarios.
as we mention in 2011 we get into the specific elements of the plan.
and the city charter does say the plan needs to address the extraterritorial jurisdictions.
so we don't have an alternative not to address it.
it has to be a partnership.
I heard you say that.
>> right.
and I want to make sure that's clear because I'm hearing different.
>> and we made attempts to reach residents of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
we need to step up our efforts there.
we know we are underrepresented, so I think I heard you mention that, that you wanted us to do that.
>> yes.
>> I'm sorry for being late.
I had a court -- a different court engagement earlier this morning, but I wanted to thank you all for coming and I know it's been difficult to get engagement in the e.t.j.
we too very difficult is going to in getting engagement in the e.t.j.
and in public forums. And what -- what kind of help can we extend to the city in helping on that effort?
because I know we have these nine community forums coming up.
how can we be a good partner to you all in stepping up engagement?
the city of Austin does have quite a robust and long history at public engagement and we have some things we could learn from you all.
>> our outreach consultants are right now sending email notices out to all the list that we've developed so far.
if the county had additional lists of homeowners associations, that would be very helpful and we would be happy to contact your staff if that would be appropriate.
>> and we would be happy to do that since I believe all of us have -- have lists, email and post lists that might be helpful in engaging folks and getting them to come out to those forums. Is there anything else we could do to be helpful?
I was glad you all came today in the hopes channel 17 would also reach an audience that perhaps the city council broadcasts might not reach.
so hopefully this channel 17 piece will also ignite some interest in going to the hearings.
thanks so much.
>> could we just have our last slide put up again because it has our website.
>> what a good idea.
>> go back.
there we go.
>> also, perhaps it would be helpful if we put a jump site to your website on the county page.
>> yes.
absolutely.
>> I think we could probably get that done pretty quickly.
>> I'll put the meeting dates up there again too.
>> great.
>> we received backup for today's meeting, and the information seems to be similar to what you covered during your presentation, but we don't have that presentation, do we?
>> I have copies.
>> would you leave that?
>> sure.
and I also have copies of the final endorsed vision statement that city council approved.
>> is it different from what we have in the backup?
>> they've got the adopted one.
>> they do have.
>> thank you.
appreciate it.
thanks for coming by.
>> thank you.
>> judge, I had someone here that may want to make comments on this issue.
>> okay.
now is the time.
>> if you would like, thank you.
>> good morning.
>> they may need to hear this.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioners.
you know I'm john williams, board member of the park springs neighborhood association.
mr. Guernsey knows me from our experience with the whisper valley, indian hills annexation.
you all know that the city is going through the process now of annexing more than 2,000 acres of unincorporated, previously unincorporated part of eastern Travis County that's on the eastern side of the 130 tollway.
it is not directly connected to any current Austin city limits territory.
so that transportation from the roads, four-way road with bikeways and bus pullout lanes has to travel over a two-lane road to get to an overpass over 130 to connect back into what's now the city of Austin.
and this is simply an example of the kind of regional planning that needs to occur.
I know that mr. Nuckols has talked to Austin city council and I assume to you folks as well about the need for potentially some legal arrangement whereby the county and the city can have authority to address these regional issues so that you can provide for transportation improvements leading into and out of as wells simply just within territory that the city is -- is annexing.
for instance, whisper valley now has no public transportation access, and as far as I know cap metro does not have any plans to provide it.
and it's my understanding with limited-purpose annexation that there will be no cap metro sales tax revenue from whisper valley going into that so there's no incentive for cap metro to provide public transportation.
that's just one of the myriad of problems. I don't need to get into specifics about that with you now.
I do want to make sure that you folks know that my neighborhood association, which covers a large part of the unincorporated portion of the city of Austin, I don't know legally where we stand with unincorporated or with e.t.j.s of cities like manor and Pflugerville as a part of this process.
I can give you contacts, although I'm sure the Commissioners have better ones than I do of other neighborhood associations covering those.
>> jack wasn't able to make it.
he's at one of the other representatives who has made contact with several of these folks, mr. Williams, and again I thank you for that.
and with that, as you see that what he's stating is that the level of involvement we really do need to I guess tie some things down early on instead of later and make sure that those kind of considerations that you and mr. Williams have brought forth especially with the limited-purpose annexation and the other things.
let me ask this.
can there be an attempt for future meetings brought forth as a public service announcement on channel 17 from the city of Austin?
can you do that?
on such meetings?
on meetings that's going to involve the public?
>> I think we can certainly, Commissioner Davis.
>> I think we need to do that.
this is pretty critical stuff.
>> putting a link on your website to the city's website, I think we could work with your staff and probably prepare -- I know we have a public service announcement that was actually done by our mayor that's going out.
perhaps one of you would like to volunteer in that regard too and we might be able to set something up, but we can probably work with your staff and get something on channel 17.
the part that really will probably deal with the most concern of our friends in the e.t.j.
is probably a transportation element.
there are several elements of our comprehensive plan.
again, it does apply to the entire city of Austin and its entire e.t.j., so these issues dealing with transportation or housing, all those different things we're going to be discussed in the context of not just the city of Austin but its e.t.j.
as well.
those meetings are talking about those individual items, and I know transportation based on discussions with whisper valley, which we did have a lot of communication and change elements that address some of those issues before approvals are made, I think bond projects we actually have to look at those items, were address understand that process and we look forward to working with the county.
and residents and their participation in our plan in the future and attending these meetings as well.
>> if I can simply add in there, the problem legally is complicated because you've got whisper valley and indian hills that are going through limited-purpose annexation.
you've got other very large developments immediately adjacent to them, eastwood, wolf, that are not -- they are in the e.t.j.
but not being limited purpose annexed by city.
so you lawyers get to sort that sort of problem out.
but it all needs to be a part of the regional plan and I know you understand that.
>> thank you.
anybody else here on this item, if you would like to speak, please come forward.
>> thank you all very much.
we'll visit again soon.
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, September 14, 2010, 2010 7:56 PM
