Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, December 14, 2010,
Item 10
Number 10, consider and take appropriate action on county comments regarding the city of Austin's imagine Austin comprehensive plan alternative growth scenarios as they relate to the unincorporated area of Travis County and the city's five-mile tej.
tejano y mas.
the city's extra territorial jurisdiction.
>> joe gieselman and randy nicholson with the transportation and natural resources department.
given the discussion we had last week, I tried to pull together a draft resolution that reflected the discussions we had.
that is what you have before you.
and so today what I知 really asking for is either some feedback on this to make sure that I致e got it right or make amendments to it as necessary.
>> we did forward this particular deal, and I went through this, but we did also send this information to jack gilling ham and also to john williams who have been steadfast as far as participation in this process.
so I知 quite sure they may have some comments later in this process this morning.
so I値l just defer to anyone else until they are able to come forward with their comments.
I want to make sure they're included.
>> joe, why don't you hit the highlights for us while people are reading.
>> all right.
the whereases for the most part incorporated some of the thoughts that tnr had in its memo from last week.
mainly the importance of the state highway 130 corridor because of the momentum that has been there for, well, at least a decade.
certainly Travis County has invested a good amount of capital dollars both in the road system, county as well as state road system, and the park system in that what is currently the desired development corridor for the city.
the city itself has incented that development to the east.
when we looked at the entire extra territorial jurisdiction it appeared to us that a lot of the western area of the e.t.j., which is the area we're talking about for imagine Austin, is either developed, reserved for bcp or some water quality purpose or it's constrained by the natural topography and other regulations.
so when you look at the western area, the opportunities for development aren't quite as open.
but when you look at the eastern area of the extra territorial jurisdiction you have almost the opposite.
a lot of open spaces yet to be developed.
you have things going on that are reflective of almost an emerging market for land development.
and it's also the area, quite frankly, that the city and the county both have been incenting development for several decades.
we believe there's some inertia to that.
the momentum will continue in that corridor.
and so what we set as a tone for this is asking the city to acknowledge some of those things and how they choose their future scenario, whatever that might be.
we stopped short of actually recommending a scenario.
tnr did have a recommendation, but this resolution does not.
in place we say that basically the therefore is a resolution to pursue a coordinated policy development between the city and the county.
which would include whatever development scenario comes out of that -- the imagine Austin process.
we just want -- you were asking for this resolution to be included in that development.
as well as coordination of the policies on investment, on regulatory policies that the county and the city attempt to get on the same page and on that.
we acknowledge that there are some shortfalls and that need to be addressed by the city and the county.
that there are some limits to our authority.
not just county authorities, but also the city's authority.
to regulate land use in the incorporated area.
and that there are some things we both need to be cognizant of.
I think we're absolutely on the same page when it comes to preserving the natural resources, floodplains in particular, which are more abundant in the eastern part of the county than the western part.
and basically that we work toward consistency in our policies between the city and the county.
so overall it's a fairly benign resolution calling for more exploration and attempting, if at all possible, to get on the same sheet with regard to policies in the unincorporated area.
and we believe that area probably more so than any other area will be the -- where the bulk of the new development occurs is in the unincorporated areas.
it has for some time.
so we share an interest in what happens out there.
>> joe, for the record, tnr's recommendation with regards to the scenarios that are presented at this point is the -- is it the crescent?
>> we believe that some accommodation of the crescent and the centers approach, we understand the desire to intensify development in the centers and those centers look very logical when you look at them.
where the both campo and the city of Austin has designated centers.
generally they are probably in the right area.
they believe that those are very -- if you look logically at things, that's probably where they would be.
give or take, you know, some half mile here, half mile there.
but generally we believe that the intensity that they're calling for in the right areas, whether or not we can achieve those centers I think is -- a lot has to happen.
since we have no control over densities, the law doesn't enable the county to regulate densities.
>> actually, it specifically prohibits us from regulating the densities.
>> so in order to get that to happen, there's a lot that has to take place.
so it's not that -- it's more of an intent to pursue than a statement that it will actually happen.
that's what the nature of policy is sometimes.
>> with regard to the centers approach, there was some discussion at campo last night as well in recommendations or suggestions coming from the technical advisory committee with regard to the defining of centers.
what makes a center, what are the geographic boundaries of the centers that we are designating?
it appears that in order to make the center's concept work, it will require a higher degree of collaboration between not only the city and the county, but also campo as well in having a unified -- at least a recognized overlapping definitions of centers.
would you agree?
>> I would think so.
and I would think there's just one size of center.
I think the concept there, these things can be various types of densities.
some more intense than others.
>> my desire in the resolved part is for us to find concrete commitments between at least the city and the county at this point to get that level of definition both in policy and in practice.
to make the centers concept whether it's within a trend scenario or a center scenario or frankly a linear scenario because as mr. Knuckles pointed out last week, even if -- even if we who live in the e.t.j.
or the city limits of the city of Austin select any one of the scenarios, the market can and will present circumstances that do not set snairt yoaz selected.
set scenarios selected.
>> any comments?
>> mark lynn with the citizens advisory taskforce.
>> thank you for being here.
>> thank you.
thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
having not been able to attend the last discussion on the subject, I am very thankful and grateful that the county has elected not to pick one of the four plans.
I think that would have sort of played into the fears of the public that the plan is sort of being steered by city and in this case perhaps county authorities.
there is a great deal of I guess to be honest mistrust on the part of the citizenry that they feel like they haven't been listened to and that these plans are kind of being done in back rooms. So I think it's much more appropriate for the county to take the position that it is leaning towards where you are asking for coordination and collaboration with the city.
I think as a member of the public that reassures me greatly that the past years' worth of efforts in trying to garner public opinion and surveys and meetings and chip exercises and all the like haven't really been in vain?
that really this is a plan that is starting really with the citizens and hopefully is getting as much county and city support to implement it.
so I think this is a very good position to take.
I think this approach will lead to a greater chance of success.
is it perfect?
will we get everything?
obviously not.
it's better to start with what you want and then do everything you can to reach that.
and I think that's what the county is doing.
I was made very much aware at our last discussions about the limitations that the county has --
>> it was a good, robust discussion.
>> it was.
we probably won't have another one like that.
but I appreciate that opportunity.
it did seem to be in the ensuing weeks that the county does have the power of the purse.
that the county can incentivize the kind of projects that might be considered preferential with things like tax breaks and any other kind of economic incentives.
and conversely can set fees.
and I知 not an attorney, but I was considering maybe that the county could increase fees on the kind of projects that you wish to discourage.
while you cannot go out and overtly rezone property or create zoning, there are some financial incentives.
I would imagine that the county still has at its disposal to try to reach these preferred growth positions.
and I would encourage to you do so.
I did read in the paper about is it rio davita project where a developer is setting aside half of the property as open space.
and I don't know if there were any sort of incentives to get him to do that or get them to do that, but I was greatly heartened to read this in the paper.
this is exactly the kind of development --
>> that is in Ron Davis' precinct about that open space, if you really want to know the truth.
>> thank you very much.
but obviously this is the kind of development that would be vastly preferential to sort of uncontrolled sprawl.
I think sprawl is what we're all concerned about.
and not having it properly planned.
and this kind of project really sets a great precedent.
I知 really looking forward to seeing more like that.
thank you very much.
>> call it urban design.
>> any other comments?
>> judge, if I may.
my name is jack goldhorn, one of your appointees on the taskforce.
I wanted to for lack of a better word applaud the county's approach on this.
I think the city -- they're two competing ends to this process.
one is long-term optimism and the other is short-term realcism.
I think the county is at this point in time making recommendations to to the city that are not joe benign.
I think you probably have planned down the importance of what you're doing on this because I think this recommendation plays well into the fact that what the county should be doing right now is calling for coordination and cooperation with the city.
that's the only way that I think in the short-term to midterm that a plan like this that we're working to try to put together is going to be effective.
and ings the more the city can -- and I think the more the city can become convinced that they need the county and the county's cooperation and the county can find opportunities to inject that realism into the city's process so that we then can have, whether it's public-private partnerships or whether it's intergovernmental cooperation or whatever it is, that to me is what's really paramount coming from the county.
and randy, you and joe are doing I think a good job of trying to shepherd this through.
and Commissioners, again I appreciate very much the diligence, the time and the effort that you guys are putting into something that is one or two steps removed from something you can actually impact other than sort of leading people to the water and hoping to get them to drink.
so thank you for doing that.
>> well, jack, I want to tell you right now, face to face, that I appreciate your willingness to serve.
because when I asked you did you want to serve, you stepped up to the plate and just jumped head first into all of this.
and of course that's very much appreciated.
>> I hope my wife is watching.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I hope so too.
>> but anyway, thank you for your service.
>> thank y'all of you from all of us.
>> I feel a little compelled to speak up here for the western half of Travis County.
and just fine tuning on the resolution whereases.
while I agree with everything that is said in here, the second pair graph, the whereas western portions of the city's extra territorial jurisdiction are actually substantially developed, rezoned for environmental mitigation are restrained by topography and development regulations, I wouldn't want to imply by putting that paragraph in there and not having some counter paragraph that there are no issues regarding western Travis County.
so I think that it's appropriate to target the eastern side and the high growth area.
and I think that the rest of the whereases imply the need for collective coordination and collaboration throughout the whole county.
so I would prefer just to take that second paragraph out.
something that indicates that there are still challenges in western Travis County.
>> whereas although land use issues remain, the western portion of the city's e.t.j.
are already substantially developed.
would that be enough office.
>> I think we've got a lot of issues out there.
that we are constrained.
we are significantly developed.
I think just taking it out would leave more of a door open because there are other whereases in general principles that could be applied.
and we've targeted the eastern side in the whereases, which is very important to do.
because that is the targeted growth area.
>> I agree with you there are a lot of challenges on the west side and I would have to agree with you that other than taking that out that there would have to be some elaboration beyond what's there.
I think it's easier to take it out.
because really the document is targeted towards development on the east side.
>> any objection to taking it out?
then it's out.
any other comments?
>> one quick one.
I want to thank you for taking this approach.
I think the idea of choosing a scenario of letter b or c is so loaded because there are so many details in each scenario that don't necessarily apply to Travis County's issues.
that are either positive or negative with the public and the city of Austin, so I think it's much more straightforward and useful and provides more information to do what you've done than to pick a letter because if you pick scenario c, the aspects of scenario c you care about aren't delieniated.
I think it's much more useful to take a more open approach and to continue to give input to the city about the specific concerns you have that can be addressed within this planning process rather than trying to take a generic scenario that has other implications in it beyond the ones that the county would be concerned about.
so I appreciate this approach.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> can I make one more comment I neglected to make earlier?
that is as the county inevitably develops and fees come in from the tax base that will be developed there, I壇 like to suggest the county consider taking a certain percentage of those -- that revenue and designating it to land acquisition so that -- I grew up here in Austin.
I think that's the main concern about development in the eastern side of the county is protecting open space, water quality, parkland and our agricultural base to the extent that's possible.
I would like to suggest you guys look at that.
and hopefully -- the other thing to consider is that people who live in the city are also members of the county or were residents of the county as well.
if you look at the questionnaires the city has been asking people to fill out and reply to a great number talk about protecting open space.
and because the questions are geared to the eastern side, agriculture land.
so there are people in the city who I think see the value of protecting land in the county even though they may not be occupants or residents of the county per se.
and that is where I知 really excited by this notion that the city and the county actually work together because in the long run it's in the city's interest to help acquire land in the county, assuming that's legal.
but I think having more development create revenue and having some sort of dedicated fund much like our gas taxes, a certain percent is dedicated to building roadways.
if you take the same approach I think we could acquire a significant amount of open space.
thank you.
>> I move the 2010 draft before us taking out the second whereas clause.
any discussion on the motion.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
>> thank you so much for your service.
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, December 14, 2010 2:33 PM
