Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 28, 2010,
Item 56
56, consider and take appropriate action regarding proposed elements of the travis county comprehensive plan.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners. Brandon nicholson, transportation and natural resources. I'm the planning division manager and with commissioners eckhardt and huber's support and assistance, we are in the planning to plan mode as relates to a comprehensive plan for travis county. So we thought over the next few months we would brief the court on the status of our planning to plan effort, hope to bring forth not only the information we got for you today but some additional information over the next few months.
>> you mean all the information i supplied you guys, you guys are not considering that. How come you just mentioned two commissioners here and we've had some input into some of this process? How can you do that?
>> yes, sir, we hope to include as we move forward the next two to three months finishing our plan, we should have all the comments incorporated.
>> no, you didn't hear what i said.
>> i'm sorry.
>> listen to what i'm saying. You mentioned commissioner huber and commissioner eckhardt as far as the comprehensive plan. I've had input -- my office has had input in this process also. How could you exclude commissioner davis' office.
>> i'm sorry i did. That you are correct. We do have --
>> let's make it conclusive.
>> yes, sir. Commissioner davis has provided significant input.
>> thank you.
>> i apologize for that.
>> that's all right. Just making an observation.
>> but what we have this morning is kind of laying out the foundation, review with you how we anticipate the formulation of the plan and the framework -- the framework for the plan. And that's basically we're focusing on travis county's assets. And particularly the assets are spelled out in your background document is what we call key elements of the plan. So important for the court to understand that there are significant areas of the plan that we are addressing and significant areas of a comprehensive plan that we are not addressing. So it's important today to focus on what we've laid out as the background reports and the two documents that we hope to bring forward as part of the comprehensive plan policy at the end of this planning process. So if you turn to attachment 1 or the project deliverables, i want to just go through those with you and make sure we're kind of on the same page about our plan framework. The plan is currently outlined will have a background report and a policy report. Two significant documents. The policy report will be -- what we call a short form, but it's going to be very specific to the broad policies that the overall plan leads to or is supported by the commissioners court. The background reports are divide into what we're call the key assets of the county which are water resources, land resources and then our transportation areas. So within the -- the policy document, you would see addressed in those fashions the resources, the land, water and transportation. But in the background report, you would see the more detailed element of plans, element, visions and those kind of things that lead up to that broader policy. So the idea since you are looking at a plan horizon of 25 years, 2035, your policy plan focuses on the broader issues, but it has significant background data for which you are bringing forth those larger policy issues.
>>
>> [inaudible] what the springfield is doing with their particular plan?
>> the image austin?
>> yes.
>> image austin will --
>> or will it dove-tail. They gave us a presentation not too long ago and, of course, it was certain elements of concern that -- on some of these same subject matter that you are bringing here today --
>> i think --
>> hold it. Please. That we addressed at that time and, of course, county being what our plans are, we want to make sure that those integral parts are still net worked so those are some of the concerns we have brought up out of our office to make sure there is still a relationship and also still being not independent per se but doing our own thing if we possibly can under the plan we have. So that's what i'm trying to make sure continues to happen, especially on the water situation and the other type of opportunities that you have, transportation and other things you mentioned, land use, all of these things. And, of course, those things have been echoed several times as far as what's going on in my precinct, precinct 1, the precinct i represent, and, of course, i just want to make sure those components are adhered to as we go forward. I don't want them to be bypassed so i'm making sure you understand what i'm saying.
>> yes, sir.
>> all right.
>> yes, we hopefully will respond as the image austin plan moves forward with their merging of scenarios that they have out there now, we certainly hope to come back to the court to say here's where i think the staff, planning staff would -- as you outlined, feel like they have not addressed or have addressed or issues that are coming forth in our plan. So yes, sir, i hope to stay on point with that and what austin is doing as well as the other 22 municipalities within our county. So yes, we have our work cut out for us to stay on point with all of those planning efforts.
>> all right. Thank you.
>> to get back to, again, kind of the outline, if you look at the page 1 of the attachment, i think, again, it's important to understand how we've kind of broken out the elements, and particularly elements that focusing on a staff resources. This is a completely in-house plan and the staff, professional staff that we have can certainly address the issues that we've outlined for you today. There is a footnote in that in that we're working with deece eckstein in terms of our public outreach effort and we may have some outside resource needs in that area, so that's another part of this plan that we'll bring forth in the next few months as a public outreach effort. Particularly in the rural areas, there has been i think the success that deece had in the census was spoken to in one of our earlier briefs, and i think we're going to try to build on that success and look and see how in our comprehensive plan -- planning effort that public outreach can really be an excellent model going forward. So as the plan comes forth and you have your briefs and workshops and we go out to the public, public outreach plan and the public participation plan is something we hope to bring to you in the next couple of months that you'll need to certainly weigh in on that. The elements i've outlined here, we anticipate having the green resource, the water transportation. The fifth one is going to be an unusual one and it's a working titles following land use and growth management. But right now i see that headed towards, again, looking at our water and transportation resources and water management, that that will certainly guide significantly what we call our growth management plan. So that will be a key element that will come forth once we've understood the community's desires and the court's desires in those other broader issues and the land use and policy elements will grow out of that. So that kind of follows along those other three elements. So it doesn't lead, but it follows those other elements. Lastly, of course, one of the most important things that we'll work on down the line in this plan is the implementation of the plan. And the plan as everyone normally understands with a comprehensive plan, it's a work in progress, that as things change in state legislature or other municipalities, we'll be constantly updating and revising and monitoring those. So the plan will stay flexible even though we'll bring it to you as a document hopefully for final approval. Understand that a plan is -- is always a plan in motion and that i think you are taking the first right step to work with the community, get a foundation for future decisions and future resource allocations, but the plan will have to stay flexible i think for it to be current with the changing demographics or economy and things that we don't necessarily have control over. I pointed out to the subcommittee that one of the things that the plan will point out hopefully is that there are certain goal areas that the county court and commission have 100% control over. There's going to be some goal areas that we hope to -- to influence as opposed to have total control. And we'll try to point those out very succinctly as we go through the report to say here's areas we are having to deal with unfunded mandate or policy decisions from stated or other federal agencies but they are important to our planning effort and we will try to keep you posted on those as well.
>> we had an opportunity to look at a situation where we can notify persons that move out of the city limits, out of the city limits of a jurisdiction, example, city of austin, and we want to make sure that the person, the residents that move out of the unincorporated area, in the unincorporated area, had an opportunity to understand that the county had very limited land use authority. Of course, the relationship that we had with the city is under title 30, of course, because it's a shared e.t.j.-type situation. I guess this particular notice would have to be indicated on the plat notes, a person getting ready to purchase a home out there should -- should be notified especially out in the county that's not within the city's e.t.j., that the county had very limited authority as far as land use, because what's been happening is folks move out in the county and out of the unincorporated areas of a municipality and they find out that the compatible adjacent activity that's going on to them is not compatible with maybe a resident. So we try to bring an opportunity for folks to understand that when you are moving out there, you are moving out there with your own risk and that we have very limited authority, the counties do. My question to you is that within the e.t.j. Of the city of austin, and this has come up under land scenario in our comprehensive plan, where are we now with the city of austin to make sure that that could be a joint effort whereby they will also become a part of this so that notice will -- will have -- will be made available to persons that are within the city of austin's e.t.j. And, of course, within the county? So i don't really know where we are, but i just think that we need to maybe have an update on that particular aspect of the land aspect especially if we're talking about land, water and also transportation. What were and what the city has done so far as far as that particular opportunity. I don't know where we are, but i think we need to find out where we are on that as far as the joint -- hopefully a joint marriage between the county and the city to at least alert folks to let them know what limited situations that we have, of course, and i'm quite sure the city has maybe some other limitations also. But the folks that are moving out there really do need to -- they really need to know. Otherwise what we're hearing from the -- what the court is hearing is that folks are coming here and they are complaining because something happens next door to them and they will think that, well, county, why didn't we know all that's things. This is one way we could get the word out to let them know in advance before you move out of the jurisdictional protection of any municipality as far as land use authority. So where are we on that notification process with the city of austin?
>> i personally have not been involved with that, commissioner, but i can certainly --
>> i think it needs to be a part of where we're going because it pertains to land use and it pertains to land, so that's a part of a lot of this.
>> sounds like a policy issue that certainly --
>> it is. It is. Well, it's under title 30, if we can just get both of them to cooperate.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir. Just to finalize my brief is again we hope to return to the court over the next several months working with the commissioners on, again, more of the planning the plan type elements so within the next two to three months we'll have a firm foundation for how we're going to allocate internally all of our staff resources that are going to be critical to the implementation of this plan. And we have a lot of, again, professional staff on board that will be integral to bringing forth the plan elements to you. So we appreciate the opportunity and with that try to answer any of your questions.
>> mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, ronnie reeferseed. And i'm just wanting to ask you, sir, i want take t.o. Aplayed you for -- i want to applaud you for the presentation about -- you spoke about the -- you are looking for input from -- from the more rural areas. I forgot what phraseology you used. And my concern i was going to express it to karen huber was that since we're talking about transportation and reality of many years now up to now and into the future, if the population is moving out to where my house is, and there's not any way to get there. I've been -- and i'm hoping that -- i'm wondering if maybe a -- if the growth of population out there and the need for people who go out there not for bus routes and anything like the most recent thing that just released, the bus actually goes to highway 71, the 333 goes, used to almost get there, now it covers part of highway 71. And i'm hoping that maybe or i'm wondering if any inclusion of highway 71 up to and including the Lake Travis area, which is like you are saying a great resource, it's one of the three major resources and it's one of the greatest states in the whole world not to mention texas obviously, so it's untouched right now. You can't get anywhere near Lake Travis with the bus system as we have it and i'm wondering is that at all in the planning or is now a time for citizens to -- like me to say why don't you include that or what about the future, the input from rural -- when is the best opportunity to express those kinds of ideas and to get any change in your plans? Is that possible?
>> we'll be developing a -- we really are in the plan to plan phase and we're developing a public input process and trying to build a better mouse trap with that regard in collaboration with the city and watching what their experience is, the public input process. But you are right, we need to have the most robust process to get the rural input on what's most needed.
>> i'm willing to throw in my two cents.
>> i think that one of the things that will be helpful with the development of the comprehensiveness of this plan in conjunction with the public input is for example one of the reasons we don't have bus service in that area is that air opted out of cap metro. So the comprehensive plan should be able to help demonstrate growing need, which would then allow us to go to the next step and demonstrate where that need is and what those resources are that perhaps bus service that we need to figure out how to address.
>> can i ask you about that cap metro thing? Did we ever get a chance to vote on it, the neighborhood or anything like or that was just a --
>> that was way before me even, but there was a vote.
>> it was a county-wide precinct by precinct vote and only one precinct voted in and that was south -- northeast, precinct 2.
>> so they all voted against it?
>> that's true.
>> i wanted to thank randy and the staff for putting this together. I think that this provides a huge benefit to us moving forward to take transportation, water and green space and then a fourth element of land use that brings all three together and cross collateralizing and looking at transportation and green space as a whole. That was a learning curve for me when i first came in that if you want to look at transportation, you really have to look at land use. If you want to look at water, have you to look at land use and preservation of green spaces you have to look at land use. This is a huge step in the right direction to take these three elements, look at them as a whole and the fourth element and then actually create a fiscal, legal and capital improvement plan to implement. So i would move approval of the framework, which is a high level document that is supported by a much more substantive drill-down in these six areas, randy?
>> six areas that will support one high level document that provides our 40,000 feet plan to 2035.
>> is there a way for citizens to look at that master plan?
>> it doesn't exist yet.
>> oh.
>> this is our conceptual discussion of what the plan will look like, but what we're asking for is that we have six distinct volumes that feed the plan and those six volumes would be developed both through staff work and through public input process to make sure staff was addressing the real concerns of the folks on the ground. But it will be a two-way street too. I think it's important in the public input process for us to also communicate to the folks how much we actually can do from managing expectation standpoint. A lot of folks don't know what county government really does, and more to the point, i think that commissioner davis is making what county government cannot do.
>> right. Yeah, okay.
>> number 2 is transportation, mr. Reeferseed. Volume 2 is transportation. Is there a second to the motion?
>> second.
>> and i'd like to include basically this type of aspect. I mentioned several things that i would like to see transformed and what the request that i made, i want to make sure that what we're doing is something that -- that is accessible not only to the persons out there but make sure that what's being done is accessible to everybody on this court. I want to make sure that the input that i provided is also included in this process. I don't want that to be no way, shape, form or fashion excluded. And i mean that. I want to make sure that the -- the configuration of this county, that as far as the remaining square mileage, and that -- those numbers are there, that's in the unincorporated area is highlighted. Because we only have so much unincorporated area we can deal with. We have e.t.j.s all over the place, but at the end of the day there's certain things what the city of austin and these other municipalities have not annexed so that means that it's in the county. So that needs to be looked at, and i think i may have spoken to that earlier when we broke down and we looked at how much remaining unincorporated areas in each one of these precincts. And so i think that should be a part of this process to let folks know what we got to deal with out in the rural and in the e.t.j. And aspects outside of the e.t.j. So i think it's very critical that we put these numbers as far as what we're trying to -- as far as where we're trying to go so the public can really see and mr. Reeferseed brought up about being rural. There's a lot of rural all over the county and it's out of the e.t.j.'s within the city so i just think that needs to be a part of all of this as we go forward. And i think i asked for certain things to be included and i want to make sure they are period.
>> so do you anticipate bringing to court a community outreach plan at some point?
>> yes, sir, we do. Hopefully within the next month. We've got quite a few people looking at that right now and have some ideas and some strategies that we think would maybe be, as commissioner eckhardt said, robust effort. So hopefully within 30 days if not 60 at the latest. We're working with i.t.s. For example right now to see if we can't go ahead and get court action. If the framework is approved today, we'll get that occupy the internet to at least give folks a first look at the framework that we intend to bring forth. So as fast as we can try to get information up there, we will on the internet. But there's a significant other level of communication versus engagement versus outreach. And i think there's several levels we're trying to get our arms around right now that hope to bring to the court here shortly.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> hopefully those things i included are part of this motion because i think it's very significant as far as my precinct is concerned.
>> right now the motion covers what's in the backup. If there is something in addition to that, i think we need to see some additional backup plus another item. The general comments, though, about inclusiveness --
>> because i'm requesting it because it's some of the input that i've had. In other words, it's stuff that we submitted is not being included. That bothers me.
>> well, but we need it in writing and we need it where the court can see it. It may make all the sense in the world to add it. I'm not expressing a judgment on it. I'm just saying this motion covers what's in 2 backup.
>> well, i think those things i discussed should be added because those are things i have brought to the attention of the
>> [indiscernible] of everybody else.
>> may i -- perhaps this would be useful with regard to the motion. Since this is just a framework item, it doesn't speak to any items to be included, it really is just a framework for moving forward, would it capture your concerns to say that the motion is to adopt this framework as well as the -- the intention -- and i believe we have a draft that your staff has also reviewed with regard to a regular check-back and regular votes by the full commissioners court so that we don't leave anything out that's voted by the full commission?
>> i want the staff to note on what i suggested and what i brought up, and i hope that what they brought up is something that we can include. And in the motion. Because it's specific for me. I know these are general, but it's specific for me since the -- the thing is moving pretty fast at city of austin. Imagine austin --
>> do you want to take another week and try to come up with something specific in writing?
>> well, judge, i have continuing education next week unfortunately.
>> we can add to this any time we want in the future. We are the commissioners court.
>> i would like to just hold this up until we can get things laid out specifically as far as what's affecting precinct 1.
>> commissioner davis, if i might add, we -- i know that we've seen what your staff has brought and believe that that contributeutory. It's sort of like we're getting everything in there but we need this framework to move forward to plug those things into. And i really would encourage we go ahead and approve this framework and continue to work in the inclusive way we have already so we can move forward to the point where we plug those details into it.
>> the point is you didn't include it to begin with. You didn't include what we have suggested out of our precinct. That's the problem i'm having. The problem i'm having is that it's already been discussed, it's already been laid out, staff already is aware of it, y'all are aware of it but yet you didn't include it so that's what's bothering me.
>> i have not included any of my specific returns with regard to precinct 2 either because this a broad brush framework document that we're considering today. But --
>> does it have to be right now?
>> let me finish. I had a "but" that was hanging out there.
>> ask for request to delay it.
>> but when is the commissioners court's next opportunity to vote as a full commissioners court with regard to the next phase in the comprehensive plan?
>> what's the time lines on --
>> i would like my question answer.
>> what's the time line --
>> excuse me, commissioner davis, i would really like to have my question answer.
>> i can't speak for everybody. I can only speak for me. Let me ask this question, staff, what is the time lines on this? When would you like to go forward with this? Because again i heard you, randy, but you didn't check with my office. And joe is aware of it and everybody else. My question now is when do you have to have this information laid out? Per se. When is the drop down deadline date on this?
>> i think a lot of the background work moves forward irregardless. This just really is a point along the way. We want to check in with the court. We think the framework that's set out in the backup is a very generalized framework. It's not specific to any particular policy or any particular precinct. I think it's just -- you might want to call it a table of contents. I don't think any of the comments that you or your staff have made are any different than what would alter this outline, this table of contents. I think you are talking about some details that are yet to be, you know, developed and put into any document. As the whole court will have ideas about what to put in. So i don't think this is inconsistent. But what it is is a starting point. You can delay this for how howeverlong you want to delay i. We've got lots of homework we can be doing in the meantime. I don't want us to get off on the wrong foot that somehow we're excluding any ideas of any particular commissioner, i think it's important everyone has input. If you police chief this feel tk does not reflect your views, i think we ought to stop. We've had many discussions and i'm sitting here what we've missed in this outline that's not reflected that has some bearing on precinct 1 in particular. Perhaps we need to have another discussion.
>> let's look at land use for an example, joe. Earlier discussion we heard on traffic congestion, but we have unwanted as far as the folks are concerned persons that are locate adjacent to property that really is something that's gotten to the point where it's being brought to all of our attention on this court. And, of course, land use authority is something that's very critical in this court. And as far as the residents of travis county period. And, of course, we mentioned land work and in fact i even brought up title 30 earlier. As far as what we've tried to do just using that little instrument dictated by state law which says we have an opportunity to work with the city of austin for example on land use authority per se. And not only that, looking at the zoning and looking at -- not the zoning, but the transportation and drainage and all these things we work with the city of austin on in their e.t.j. We have persons moving out in this community in precinct 1, and i know it's happening in other parts of the county, but i can only speak to precinct 1. We have folks moving out here not knowing anything about what they are getting into unless they move out of the e.t.j. Of the city of austin. So what we end up doing, this court passed a notice where we could indicate on the plat notes as far as letting folks know that travis county doesn't have the land use authority out there in e.t.j., but, of course, it has to go through not only us, if tonight's the e.t.j., that means the city has to embrace it. Joe, as of today i don't think that's been done. Folks are still moving out in the county, moving out in precinct 1 and then they are faced with adverse land use situations that they have no idea, they say oh, commissioner, i wish i would have known that and we get the complaints through here all the time. So i just think that needs to be looked at and examined very closely. That hasn't been done and what's the deal, what's the holdup?
>> well, first of all, that type of issue, our lack of land use authority would certainly be discussed in the land use element and it would in the legal analysis that we have here. What you are really talking about is almost an implementation of issue actually very specific to plat notes and changes in title 30. That directive is still good, still moving forward, it's active, and it's a -- something we would do whether or not this comprehensive plan is prepared or not. It's a specific issue. All i'm saying this framework will capture the type of issues you are trying to get to. Land use, transportation, water issues, all those things, and quite frankly we don't even have a land use policy yet and that's what this comprehensive plan would hope to do. Then we start talking about how you implement it and what kind of authority you do or don't have to implement it. I think you are way down the road here.
>> i know, but see, joe, my point is i've been down the road. You've been down the road. Every commissioner that has sit in these seats up there including the judge have been down this road. What we were looking for are relief factors, hopefully this comprehensive plan will provide some of these relief factors, but in the meantime, we still have some due diligence to do especially comes to title 30. Of course i'm far down the road and probably need to be farther down the road but we don't dictate law, the legislature does that. But my concern is that the folks be fully aware of what they are getting into when they move out into the e.t.j., out of the city's jurisdiction and offing in the county's jurisdiction we don't have land use authority and i think that needs to be paramount and it's not being mentioned. We provided a lot of input. We've had meetings in this process and yet it just appears that we've listen left out of the process. That's the only thing i'm bringing it. It just appears that we have been left out of this process.
>> commissioner eckhardt, did you get your question answered?
>> no, but i can ask staff afterwards.
>> unless that motion is withdrawn or there is a substitute, we need to act on it.
>> i make a substitute motion that we include some of the things that i've added here this morning, special lay listened use authority into this process. Because otherwise we'll come out here half stepping and the folks won't understand what direction we're going into. They do understand land use and they know they are being bombarded by situations where they would like to be notified as far as what's going on next door to them. So again, i just think that land use authority needs to be -- needs to be flushed out a little more and especially under title 30, i think we need to push forward with that. That may be farther down the road but at least it gives us an opportunity to stay out front as far as this framework and i just like to make sure it's cloud within the process.
>> is that friendly to the maker of the motion?
>> i just want to make sure that's --
>> how much more time would you need, commissioner davis, to come up with language to insert into this framework?
>> i just stated it. I just stated just what i said right now.
>> is there a second to that motion? We are back to the original motion. Staff has advised, though, that has the all powerful commissioners court, we are free to revise that document at any time in the future that we see fit providing we follow appropriate procedural rules, which means we need agent item and some back -- an agenda item and we can revisit it.
>> i think that probably needs to be done. Right now i just think joe and staff, y'all have given precinct 1 the short end of the stick. That's the way i feel about it. I think the residents of precinct 1 deserve more than they are getting today and i'm going to austin to strive forward to -- austin to strive forward we're getting more than what we're getting here today.
>> i will withdraw the motion if you can give me -- do you need a week?
>> commissioner eckhardt, i said before i would be out in continuing education. From what i'm hearing staff, they don't really have to do it today.
>> how about two weeks?
>> commissioner eckhardt, i will be continuing education the first week and out on vacation the next two weeks. That's very obvious. Everybody got the email. But anyway, i'm going to --
>> you are free to withdraw the motion without conditions. Otherwise i'll ask for any additional discussion on the motion. All n. Favor of the motion? Show commissioners huber, eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor.
>> commissioner davis abstaining with those points of view i spoke out, i really want them within the framework so the folks of precinct 1 will understand that they won't be excluded out of this process especially when they see directly where we're coming from on this issue. I want to make sure of that.
>> i will remand the court and staff that we can revise this rather broad set of guidelines at any time we deem appropriate. With that i move we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? Show -- all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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 28, 2010 3:37 PM
