Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 22
22, though, is to receive presentation and take appropriate action on the broaddus and associates central campus master plan phase 2 work to date including, a, a civil and family courthouse, cfch, program summary.
b, civil courthouse site analysis.
c, civil courthouse concept options overview, and d, central campus master plan phasing scheme.
good afternoon.
>> good afternoon.
>> thank you for your patience, by the way, and sorry to take so long to get to you.
>> good afternoon, rodney rhoades.
just want to take a quick moment and say thank you to all the elected officials and department heads and appointed officials who have assisted us in getting to this point.
we're going to ask today for approval of a which is the civil and courthouse project with the understanding the district attorney in consultation with her would request that we -- that she take a look at the space needs and we could come back at a later date to amend the program.
we're asking for approval today of the civil and family site analysis and I think with that we can jump into a and b and then talk about c and d.
yeah.
>> good morning, judge.
good afternoon, judge, Commissioners.
good to see you again.
but we've been making some great progress over the last couple months and -- or have a lot of information to cover with you today.
I know you have a big pile of information and backups so I'm going to try to go through this as succinctly and possible because we have a lot of information to cover.
first will be the review of kind of the summary of the program which we've been before you with a couple of times, but really refined based on the final outcomes, discussions, with the caveat that rodney just mentioned.
the site analysis, basically catching up the civil and family courthouse site to the rest of the site analysis that's been done for the central campus downtown master plan area.
and then share with you the concept options associated with the potential development area of the civil and family courthouse property.
and essentially that's catching us up to the presentation that we shared with you last fall, which had an arrow pointing off into the sunset that said a future civil and family courthouse site on a site to be determined.
and so we've basically done the analysis on the -- on this particular site.
catching up the new property to everywhere else to the extent of everything else in the central campus master plan.
and with that now factored in, we want to share with you an overview of where we are preliminarily on the phasing to talk about how that conceptual plan that you reviewed last fall with the augmentation of the civil and family courthouse actually plugs into an implementation strategy based on our first pass and a series of refinement conversations going on over the next few weeks to kind of get you up to speed on that.
so the cfc program summary basically pull that is out and looks at that as a stand-alone facility as opposed to integrated now we know thereto a site and component to.
that we've identified all the space and program components.
we had adjustment to the grossing factor based on us going back and now with a specific site being able to look at and specifically articulate some of the support spaces that before were just rolled into the grossing factor.
we added the secured below grade parking now based on the site into the program which is 38 spaces which -- which ended up putting us at a total gross square footage projection of 505 gross square feet including the parking and the 35 staffing projections.
at the 718 number.
this slide basically walks through the horizons for the programmatic need and the for the overall 2535, tiger it back to to need for the purposes of master planning, our projections what's the capacity of the development of the site for the full property.
the program basically comes out to 505 gross square feet on the building overall with adding in the parking square footage that I just mentioned taking it to 522 hundred.
>> thousand.
>> a little bitty house.
>> I'm going to pause right there because that's really kind of tweaks and updates that you've seen before and I think that covers pretty much what we had in item number a.
if you want to act on these as we go through the presentation, judge.
>> basically the difference is between what you had previously -- you had tentatively approved versus what you have today is, as I mentioned earlier, the district attorney space that's still under review, but also we have accommodated the common or shared areas, janitorial closets, idf and mdf projects as a part of the grossing factor.
the total has not changed from what you had seen previously, but we have been able to accommodate those common shared spaces.
>> I'm looking at page 5 here.
I don't see the district attorneys.
>> one of the conversations now that we have a specific site when we did review of stacking and looking at this building over the last couple of weeks, the district attorney has asked to go back and talk with staff.
she had previously asked to keep offices consolidated but now that we have a site, she wants to make sure that's still her business approach or whether she would be coming back later and saying there's a portion of her attorneys that handle the cps dockets that might need to be in the building and they just don't have a decision about that yet.
>> with regard to that decision, since the staff recommendation is just to accept this program summary to finalize the central master planning and continue planning an analysis, use it as a baseline, she -- she doesn't have to make that decision until much further down the road.
we just need to -- to be all singing from the same hymnal.
>> we just wand to be aware of the fact she is still analyzing that and she didn't want us to hold approval for the baseline of the documentation, just have the Commissioners court know she is still evaluating that.
>> this baseline will undoubtedly be amended over time as facts change on the ground, but just to adopt it as the baseline.
>> that's a good point.
this is the program level information for master planning purposes, as we've discussed before.
and I think the other component related to the county attorney -- or related to the district attorney is that we do -- we do have kind of the hoteling type space there, but I think the conversation was is that really enough and that's kind of a business decision for their operational perspective.
>> I move approval of the this program summary as the baseline.
>> second.
discussions?
all in favor?
show a unanimous vote by the Commissioners court.
>> the next item starts getting into the physical site related to courthouse proper.
and the following slide basically walks through what we identified as some of the most important kind of master planning design parameters that needed to be considered from -- from the court's perspective.
one had a lot to do with the location of the property in terms of courthouse identity and function.
also with the context from an urban environment fitting into the downtown master plan for the city of Austin.
and also thinking about the context, the full capacity of the site in terms of this maximum development potential.
so getting into the site, we really wanted to understand what the context was in which we were working.
so the graphic before you basically depicts the color coded areas of the properties that we've been studying to date.
in yellow with the green indicating the dimensional disstances.
now we're really coming from the edge of 700 lavaca property to the civil family courthouse site about a little less than a quarter of a mile.
and we're sitting right on the piece of property where the original courthouse site was sometimes years ago so it's kind of interesting how things go -- what goes around comes around.
the current zoning on the site we want to bring to your attention under the current zoning for the property has -- if you see the dashed line around the site has something called the parks overlay related to the development guidelines for the city, which require a vertical setback from 60 feet in terms of the different height limitations that you can build along the street.
this is the kind of current land use around the site.
but one of the things we found as we moved through the plan is we really tried to look at not only the current development requirements of the site but also what was happening in terms of future development.
so a lot of times, judge and other Commissioners, you've been asking please make sure everything you are planning is happening in the context of all the other master plan knitted together into the fabric and one of those was really understanding what the full implications of future land development as relates to the downtown plan.
this property takes us very cleanly into the core water front district of the city of Austin downtown plan.
in terms of the site proper, there's a form based depictions that represent what should be approached with regard to highrise development in the downtown area.
and really encouraging walkable urbanism.
but I think one of the things that's important to understand is from a site development perspective, the plan tries to discourage large monolithic monstrous buildings but trying to break those down in terms of scale and verticality to allow for opening space and windows and views.
the other thing that we spent a lot of time considering and have considered significantly as a part of this process is transportation, and again, with the -- with the -- with all kudos for the acquisition of this particular property, you are following in that transit rich corridor we've been discussing, ties into the locations related to urban rail, in terms of the street car depictions and the bus trams on guadalupe and lavaca and the dedicated bike lanes which are going to be connecting right in and around the development area of this site as well.
and this property is going to have a major civic presence.
the diagram that you see on the right there indicates a diagram extracted from the downtown plan which means you are going to be fronting right on one of the original historic square parks so you are going to -- you are going to be one of two courthouses that are going to be fronting a major historic square.
we've identified areas for the public and service zones of the property primarily identifying fourth and third street as significant portals into access for public and private use.
and identifying guadalupe and san antonio as the service areas on the east and west side of the property.
and one thing we would strongly encourage as a part of this is as the ongoing implementation of your central campus plan is a more robust consideration of signage and way finding that really ties the central campus together in a meaningful way specially as we think about it in the context of the vertical spine that's running from north to south through the campus.
in terms of the ground floor presence, we essentially are encouraged through the downtown plan to liven the urban streetscape.
what the city is really trying to see is active uses along the ground level and we've even corporate rated that in terms of all the planning concepts, identifying those areas as potentially being along the fourth street avenue which is one of the transit oriented locations.
and along third street which is also one of the bicycle oriented areas and allowing opportunities for major retail frontage development at the corners to the extent possible.
that really summarizes our analysis of site to date and the potential of the development areas.
before we get into item number c.
>> what we would be asking to court for today is approval of the site analysis so it can be incorporated into the planning documents.
>> questions or comments regarding the site analysis?
>> there's just one thing.
I guess we'll be partnering with the city of Austin to -- to deal with the -- whatever goes on in that area.
one of the things that they are talking about and I guess fifth street, to have it as like a cultural type of -- incorporation of the hispanic history of -- hispanics used to live all in that area.
and I believe the city council has voted to -- to do something along the streets so we do plan to work with the city of Austin on the plans they have for around the site.
>> okay.
>> Commissioner Davis moves approval of the site analysis.
second?
discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
c.
>> okay.
now we're going to get into -- we're going to get into the fun stuff of actually looking at this particular site and considering the concepts for the development.
I think one of the things that we want to talk about and you point out, make a good point, Commissioner Gomez, is as we move forward in the development of this property is coordination with the city of Austin.
and I'll point out some of those a little bit more specifically.
the first option that we would like to discuss with you is really the base option that we're proposing for incorporation into the master plan in terms of recommendations, which speaks to the recommendations coming out of the Austin plan, which, as I understand it, I think it's actually on city council agenda perhaps for this week or within the next couple weeks in terms of adopting, which adoption of the downtown plan will then also have a series of implementation effects like codification that will have an impact on the land development code.
so we've made a lot of assumptions that are based on things in there that are not finalized yet.
so we're making those presumptions from a planning level perspective recognizing that some of the progress and development of your site may be predicated on decisions that you may be a little bit ahead of on the city so it may be some variations that would require site variations in terms of actual development.
what we have done for purposes of the base -- we've been asked to look at what the current maximum development potential is as it relates to the f.a.r.
currently the floor area ratio is 8 to 1.
so what you see before you is based on what is anticipated in the downtown Austin plan which would allow for up to a 25 to 1 floor area ratio development for the site.
so the concepts that we're sharing with you today are based on that maximum development potential.
and also the maximum development potential around republic square park which would also require consideration as it relates to the current setback in the existing parks overlay district.
I just want to point out those couple of items that will need be addressed as the detail development and design of this site moves forward.
fundamentally what we've done is under this scenario which we've vetted pretty extensively with the justice committee and the civil and family court members participatory in the process is looking at a development that separates two different towers on the property.
it does not incorporate any private -- private commercial tenant space within the courthouse property.
does have a conflict with the current overlay zone of republic square park, but maximizes the potential development based on the downtown plan to be adopted.
and it primarily creates frontage facing the public domain of the park for the civil family court pulling the private sector development back to the -- to the southern side of the site.
and really kind of breaking down the scale and proportion of the facilities overall so that -- and the last thing I would say in preparation of the physical sites are the private tower footprint based on an alleyway between the two buildings allows for the combination of the depth of a parking garage to be able to accommodate parking demand associated with the private tower that would go in there.
this is kind of our -- I guess this is kind of our pause for effect slide because it's pretty extraordinary.
as we start looking at the stacking and blocking of this site on the property, what the maximum potential related to the development for this site is.
when we put it in context with the buildings next, the w hotel and the 360 towers just around it.
so if you look at the plan configuration you can say distinct separation with the service alley way that allows for separation of the courts and primary entrance in the main courthouse-hour.
taking the programmatic elements and building them up floor by floor, to the right you see the private development lease potential that shows looking under this development scenario a potential for 58-story tower to property which would certainly be the largest potential development we have in downtown right now.
it is not intended in any way from this plan to -- to insinuate this is what the market for that property would demand.
that's going to be impacted by a lot of other factors, but this is the potential maximum development under the current -- under the proposed downtown plan recommendations.
in looking at this through cross-section, one of the fundamental considerations much like our conversation even we were talking about 700lavaca was trying to keep soe of the highest foot traffic in terms of access, access to the public.
so you will see things like the courts and cps, the law library on the lower floors.
there are three areas identified in there as development lease space which are fundamentally intended as the potential for conversation for the county to have with another municipality as it relates to another government function being located in that.
it's not intended as private sector lease space.
if -- if that -- if that opportunity didn't necessarily avail itself, it accommodates the potential for swing space and growth in the courts beyond the 2035 horizon which we've talked about a lot of times.
Travis County doesn't magically cease to exist 25 years after the planning window of our master plan.
and finally related to the base option, we've tested out in each of these scenarios and you will see what a typical court floor would look like.
our idyllic is four courts per floor configuration, identify be secure access, private access for the judicial chambers and really kind of keeping high visitor access to one side and the family courts on the second and third floors.
then again looking down to the site allowing the development potential for parking and lease tower structure parking on the southern side of the site.
option -- the alternative options that we recommend including in the site you have a very flexible site in terms of its development potential.
we went through a whole array of these and we could keep going on slides forever and ever, but we're sharing a couple other options that we would say are feasible within the context of our conversations.
one is option b which looks at what if the building -- if a portion of the courthouse actually slid under the private development tower.
from left to right you see what the development potential for the site looks like just with the civil family courthouse, what it could look like with a mid sized tour, tow, with a maximum tower.
under this configuration the civil courthouse would include the entire base of the first floor and would look something like this with the development lease space over the top of it, but it would allow you a little more developable area to first floor.
in option c, we actually have a slightly different configuration, allows for a different potential in terms of light and access and window walls to the property.
still has a private tower development on one portion of the site.
fundamentally has a separation between the civil and family courthouse and the private development tower, although they are connected with a common party wall.
and then in option d, this is the one judge dietz referred to as the stubby boots concept, which is very apropos in Austin, Texas, we have the option where we have the civil family courthouse occupying the lower floors with towers over the top of it.
sharing posteriorlyly in footprint a common entrance, although in looking at it a little more closely with separation of circulation, you could actually have a separate dedicated entrance for the private tower, but a commingling of those two properties as well.
vertically versus just horizontally.
so essentially this design matrix that you see here describes each of the options that we just identified for obvious reasons.
option a is the one we would include as the base option in terms of the maximum potential that still meets separation requirements, still addresses the intent of the downtown plan, also addresses the county's interest in maximizing the potential for development on the property and still keeps the minimum four courts per floor configuration.
the last thing I didn't say is in option d actually did have an opportunity for a six courts per floor scenario which the judges were okay with.
it wasn't something they were prepared to fall on their swords with one way or the other but the idea was kind of the four courts per floor scenario.
so with this I'll pause.
>> one of the things that I just wanted to say, one of the things that we were trying to make sure we could accomplish in this master plan phase acknowledging that there's a lot of work that needs to go on under separate consultation would show the court floor flexibility to anyone who picks this document up, it shows the kind of parameters that we know as a baseline we need to work within, but does again show some flexibility for opportunity for creativity on the site, but also then picks up at least something we can close out the master plan with and the easiest option legally and in a lot of other respects was that option a but as we go through phasing discussions and cost proposal to close out master planning work it be based on option a which is two separate types of building and we would just be focusing on the courthouse building, of course.
>> where is the child care?
>> it's included as a part of the program.
>> right.
>> children's waiting center is in part of the program in each case.
it may not have its own specific cell on the stacking plan, but it's on the ground floor in every case as well.
>> okay.
>> so what we would be asking the court to do today is approve option a as our illustration option as we move forward with the master planning efforts.
>> and to approve including the others --
>> b and through d in the report also as acceptable alternatives.
>> why would we want to restrict ourselves to a two building option when we've yet to look at the creative thinking of a potential partner?
>> keep in mind this is in no way including or restricting any options that might come as a as a result of the development piece.
this master planning only, master planning level work and it certainly would not restrict us in any way in that regard.
>> this is just playing with legos.
>> that's basically what it is, yes.
>> so we're saying include all four options in the master plan as all equally viable but simply use one of the options for illustrateive purposes and it would be a lot of extra work to do that for all four options where one can stand in as representative of multiple schemes and their variations that are possible for future evaluation during the development feasibility analysis.
>> which I would also say I would suggest that there are probably other options that will be proposed that we haven't -- we haven't even developed or considered here.
so one of the things we were trying to do is keep a farly simplistic approach in the closeout of this documentation while not closing the door to that creativity if there's a different option you think is better use, we would consider that.
I just -- we were trying to take a more simplistic approach so that we don't limit anything coming forward.
>> I hear what you saying and I understand that, but one of the things, a concern I might have is this would indeed even though it's a concept end up driving some of the future plans from a standpoint of perception of what the county wants.
so how do we communicate that effectively that this is not what the court has landed on from a standpoint of economy.
>> I think when you are ready to begin the process of development, if the court decides a p 3 option or a private development tower option is the option that you might want to pursue, at that point as you go through the procurement process and the development process, that's when you begin to ferret out those desires of the court.
these options maximize, as steven said earlier, it maximizes the density of the block based to downtown Austin plan and provides us with an illusion administration of that maximum density.
and it by no means locks you into saying that that is where you are going.
it is simply for illustration purposes of the master plan.
>> are you asking us of these four options which do you like best?
>> no, sir, we're asking to approve all four to be included in the master plan.
>> but you are also asking to designation one of those for further work.
did I hear that?
>> the only baseline so we know from which scenario that additional work was done.
>> that's correct.
>> which one of those did the judges like?
>> I think a was probably the most preferable.
>> I think the reason -- the reason fundamentally that we kind of settled on a is because for the purposes of resolving the master plan had to do with the simplicity of it.
it was very clean in terms of the site.
it was very compliant in terms of the recommendations that are -- fall within the downtown plan.
it -- it very comprehensively covered the programmatic need of the civil and family courthouse and it completely maximized the development potential property for the site taking into consideration facts of, you know, storefront access, ground level access, parking capacity and other things that would want to be considered as part of a development option.
the purpose for exploring the three alternatives that you see here and the many more that we looked at that ended up in trace paper and scraps and everything else and desk baskets were that essentially there's nearly an infinite number of alternate configuration that is could happen on the site.
those are part of the implementation conversations and discussion that the court is going to have to go through through multiple iterations through the implementation of the master plan over time.
but for the purposes of completing the master plan effort which is the task we're certainly have at hand, we need to do identify some baseline assumptions in terms of what the need for the county was as it relates to the master plan recognizing that each of the individual projects and the overall plan, this particular site notwithstanding, are all going to be subject to development of detailed program and design as they move forward.
>> in terms of the geometry of option a, running the -- running analysis on option a, would it be easier to extrapolate from those runs based on future configuration considerations?
I suppose what I'm getting at, we need to have a baseline that we're running this stuff on so that the next posse can come in and pull it all apart and put it back together.
would it be easier to pull it all apart and put it back together from a geometry as simple as a or one of the other geometrical configure races in b, c and d.
>> absolutely a because of the simplicity of it.
I think that ties into our next agenda conversation which is one that -- and ties into a conversation Commissioner Davis has been asking about since the beginning of this process which are what are the cost implications associated with this.
we need to come up with a determination of what our plan configuration looks like as we move into the phasing strategies to identify what the related costs are associated with each of the phased implementation of all the general government and judicial functions over the development of this plan.
so, you know, we could look at, you know, five different scenarios or ten and every one of them are going to be slightly nuanced in terms of cost implications so it's creating a baseline assumption against which future alternatives could be comparatively analyzed.
>> the other thing, the farther we've gotten into discussions on other -- other consultants needed and continuing to move forward on analyzing the site, one of the things that I think also played into the recommendation for a is that I think it is more cleanly in the realm of legal permissible active.
there are things we need to be concerned about in how we look at this site later and I don't think that we would want to mislead someone on the other hand that we know or think we can do some things that we just aren't aware of yet without limiting their creativity.
so in being able to isolate some unique costs associated with the size of the county's footprint on the site so someone else can be very creative with it the simple estapproach was a.
>> and to bring it back to the final matrix that you have before you now, going back to that early slide we identified priorities related to identity and function of the courthouse.
you know, how it fits in with the urban context and how it responds to splitting up the tower scheme and allowing for accommodation of ground level retail and parking structures for development site, option a essentially fulfills the primary categories that we've been looking at and so it cleanly falls into that realm.
not to say there's not an option e, k, g or z out there that would not meet those categories but that's certainly a design determination to be made.
>> I hear where you are going and I understand that.
all I would want to see is some language when we have this product completed that makes it very clear that this is a concept that is subject to theme and variation and we don't want to limit the creative abilities.
it's more of a communication of what this tool is, not what is here.
>> and that can be accommodated, Commissioner, in the final plaster planning documents.
>> I would also submit if we need to do add some language before -- we have our website still leslie and I have been using for public communication, that's very easily added to these slides even for posting on the website this type of material to date.
>> I'd like to see that because I just think that we're looking at this through our lens and we want to be sure that the others who are looking at it understand our lens and don't think that this is something that we have absolutely voted on, that we want two buildings on this lot.
>> absolutely.
we can do that.
>> and we will be sure that all four schemes will be shown in the master plan, b through d will be in the appendix and will be shown at the level of information that we have today, but they will be in there too.
>> can we have that language between now and next Tuesday?
>> yes, sir.
>> certainly.
>> you would like a week, right?
>> if we can have the language, yeah.
>> surely we can get it in a week.
>> we can do that.
>> be happy to.
>> why don't we just hold off on acting on c and move to d.
>> d is just before steven gets started, d is the phasing scheme that we have come up with that implements the entire master planning effort and keeping in mind this is a master plan level document subject to change.
as I've called it in the past, it's your blueprint to move forward with.
one thing I will point out is this phasing scheme does thought include the data center in the downtown area.
we have recommended that the data center be pulled out of the downtown area and the downtown plan.
so this phasing scheme does not include a data center in -- in -- as a part of the overall moves and planning effort that would take place over the coming years.
so I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
I know that's been a point of discussion for a number of months now and we have come to the conclusion that we think that it needs to be taken out of the master plan and phasing efforts.
so you want to go ahead --
>> I will begin by doing something that I didn't do before which is introduce my colleague andrew broderick here and also acknowledge him and katherine who have worked laboriously with belinda and leslie and many others on looking at the implications of the various phasing scenarios of our milestone horizons.
and the information we're sharing with you today is very much an ongoing work in progress.
we've -- a lot of this has been vetted with different folks along the way.
I believe there's actually a work session scheduled day after tomorrow with the justice group to look at some of the implications and relates to the district attorney and some of the other courts' needs on Thursday.
and so with that, I'll jump right into the discussion related to implementation strategies and explain how this is broken down.
what I'm going to walk you through quickly on the next few slides is a phasing kind of animated version of what you have in your hard copy backup.
but this particular slide right here we've added a little finer grain of detail for the purposes of our conversation to explain our approach as it relates to the milestone horizons.
what you see on the right is all of the building footprint location areas that we're studying as part of the plan in yellow.
our master plan horizons related to staffing approval for the masser will planning purposes, the program and ultimately impacting us related to phasing and our cost strategy conversations.
for the purposes of determining -- tying these back to these milestone horizons we're identifying those that fit into the 2025 milestone as projects completed between now and 2015.
projects completed for the 25 file stone would be between 2016 and 2025 and so on to 2035.
the final plan you see here as we talk through shows us with all projects complete by the milestone year 2035.
and that's our basis for strategy for developing cost and phasing implementation as we move forward.
I think that's probably kind of important to understand.
as we jump into this, the other thing I think is really important to clarify is we are still phasing at a master plan level and phasing things out as far as 20 years in advance.
so there's -- there's a much finer grain of level of detail that has to happen at the planning, design and implementation phase by staff as this project moves forward.
within these milestone horizons there are a series of domino and sequences that are obvious, but the master plan is not restrictive to say exactly that department must move on this date or this time or particularly before this particular department or time.
but as we walk through this, you will see the domino implications as it relates to either new construction, renovation, expansion, demolition or even disposition of property and how that affects the programmatic conversations that we've been having over the last few years.
so I'm going to jump right into this, but as I do, I'd like to kind of just draw your attention to the legend at the bottom of the right-hand page which is consistent on all the slides and all your backup information, which identifies the sites for new construction, the sites for renovation or in the case of a building like 700 lavaca, demolition or renovation of a piece of property and everything else is identified consistently through the process as yellow as we move through.
is first project identified between -- so I'm going to go quickly because we could spend a couple hours going through this and it's still very much a work in progress.
the first one starts with the upgrades and renovations and fitout of 700 lavaca.
relocations of resources out of the office building, a conversation going on in terms of -- that's probably a really good example of where thins happen in terms of sequencing, lease expirations and everything else, but we're talking about this occurring between now and 2015.
the Commissioners court offices and space and all the general government functions that we have within granger also being relocated into 700 lavaca, number 3.
human resources and faults management, relocations from usb, relocation of the auditor's office and purchasing office from rusk -- the purchasing office space from rusk, ultimately all into 700 lavaca over time.
criminal justice planning from a the airport boulevard site off site and then relocation of i.t.
services from the gault building into 700 lavaca.
next we start with the property that we've just been discussed in detail which is construction of the civil and family courthouse site between now and 2015.
>> you really think you can do it by 2015?
>> 17?
just a window.
>> and again, it's a master plan, right?
relocation of the civil court, county clerk, all the detail you see here, probate, justice of the peace into the civil family courthouse.
the relocation of the law library out of granger.
the relocation of domestic relation from usb.
relocation from the attorney general -- general -- from an off site location into the cfc and then we start -- then that wraps up kind of the overall development strategies for the civil family courthouse.
during that same time horizon we actually start renovation of the granger building as a phased renovation which will again get into the detailed sequencing of the property.
as a part of the eob vacation, we would actually have a relocation of adult probation, intake functions from -- from eob and intake functions from gault to granger.
we would also have the renovation of the rusk building which would relocate the health and wellness clinic from usb to the rusk building.
and then this would allow for the vacation and disposition of real estate of the -- of the executive office building.
which then at this point in time frees up the entire property of block 26 with everyone moved out of holt and the usb building for demolition.
we've identified preliminary precinct 5 constable moving from holt into granger building.
I pause here for a second because this impacts this and a couple of other discussions that we go through.
it's much like when we were going through the 700 lavaca move conversations.
there's two fundamental issues that we tried to incorporate as we move forward.
one is -- and this has been fundamental to the master plan, is keeping departments together.
rather than trying to bifurcate them or separate them into different locations, a lot of times that came up as priority discussion related to operational efficiency.
and we also -- that also factors in our adjacent matrix that we talked about last year.
the other thing that we have tried to minimize and the fact of the matter is as we start moving around all the dominoes, it's just infeasible, but we have tried to minimize the number of moves, trying to get everybody to move once, recognizing that the sequencing of demolition and construction and occupancy of some buildings are going to adversely impact certain users who have space demand constraints that are going to push and pull next to each other.
and then the last item is the demolition of the 1101 nueces building, and I know that's a fine piece of architecture you've been holding on to for a long time, but the primary purpose of that is the opportunity for relocating counseling and educating services to off campus to free up that site for potential discussion related to -- related to some kind of central heating and cooling development that would allow -- allow for better operational efficiency related to energy systems, perhaps a coverings that might go hand in -- conversation that might go hand in glove with Austin energy, but also addresses some of the issues like we have around the historic heman sweat courthouse that doesn't fit within the historic context of the structure.
then this allows us with -- with the demolition of 126, the reconstruction of block 126 and the accommodation of the below grade parking structure in this.
now, it's really important to point this out before we starting getting into conversations about what happens with central booking, with the criminal justice center expansion because one of the domino effects for our proposed concept that you adopted back last fall was that on the current san antonio garage site sits the home of the future central booking facility which means we have to find home for parking and long-term parking and immediate near-term parking before that building can be razed.
part of development of block 126 is a four-story below grade parking structure which would obviously need to happen before any of the above grade building could go in place.
public plaza relocation of the district attorney into -- from the cjc building and the gault building and granger con sop consolidated into one group with the department all together in block 126.
relocation of i.t.
services as they have grown back into 126 from 700 lavaca which then allows the space in 700 lavaca to accommodate the growth talked about in that phasing plan implementation.
the potential not specifically addressed as a part of this master plan, but the potential for the nueces site and then between 2016 and 2025, we actually have demolition of the san antonio parking garage and construction of a new central booking building with 72-hour housing.
>> this word "demolition" keeps coming up.
does it still mean to raze, to tear down, is that the demolition we're talking about?
>> yes, sir.
>> some of these struck me as being ideas when I heard them months ago.
am I to be left with the impression that these are supposed to represent decisions today?
>> we would -- in terms of the phasing plan?
>> like that underground parking.
we've discussed this several times.
>> right.
>> I don't remember ever voting for it.
>> what we are asking for today, judge, is for action on the data center concept of not having it downtown but not necessarily all of the phasing plan today.
>> we approved that lease for the next five years earlier.
>> right.
and we're just asking for court action from a master planning effort to have that taken out of the downtown master planning project.
>> but to go back to the question of what's being illustrated here as part of our development scheme really ties back scenario 2 a that was approved last fall for us to start looking at that maximizes the use of the real estate that you own and also identified and purchase the civil and family courthouse site.
so if -- we've identified everything that we need from a volume of square footage and we know everything from the civil and family courthouse could fit on existing sited, if you agree to the way they are being used in scenario 2 a which includes a centralized garage under the university savings building site so that we can repurpose the site next to the criminal justice center that now holds the san antonio garage for a new central booking facility.
and the reason for that was, again, to do a subterranean connection back to the criminal courts buildings that are going to be really -- become that block where the cjc, the jail and the gault building sit.
that was part of the reason central booking made sense on that site so you could keep all the inmate movement that you needed to underground.
>> to what extent should we feel locked in if we approve d?
>> again, judge, what we are asking for today is for you to approve the deletion of the data center as a part of the consideration for the phasing or for the master planning efforts.
and in terms of to what extent --
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> and when you ask to what extent do we want you to approve d today, that would be the extent that we would want you to approve d today.
>> but what does it mean?
to what extent should I feel locked in by approving d?
let's say we approve d and then 18 months from now I change my mind about one or more of these?
>> as I've said this is a plaster plan, it's a beautiful, and that's all it is.
it does not lock you into execution other than potentially the first phase which we know would be the civil and family courthouse.
but if at any point you want to revisit -- and I might also point out that if we get down the road, let's say, when we have financial issues that would prohibit us from execute ing this plan within the time frame that we have established, then obviously we would need to revisit.
so it gives you the -- it gives you adequate flexibility, but we believe that this is the way that we can maximize the real estate that you currently own and to accomplish the parking needs as well as the criminal justice and civil and family needs and the support functions that go along with those.
>> it's a presumption but it's a highly rebuttable presumption.
>> and the interesting thing about this --
>> that's not a bat idea language on that saying this is a presumption that will be rebutted by additional facts.
>> and the interesting thing as you go forward in the coming years, you know, if for whatever reason you feel the need to go back and revisit, then obviously we need to look at the sequencing of things.
as I have said before, this is kind of a domino effect.
you move one department here, there's a domino effect over here.
just like with this building.
moving you out then allows us to expand into this building and renovate it and repurpose the use of this building.
and so the dominoes have to be reassessed, but obviously if at any point in time you want to revisit, you have that flexibility.
>> can we come up with some language to put on it that essentially says that, that this is our presumption based on our master planning efforts to date.
>> sure.
>> that may or may not be changed based on changing facts as we move forward.
>> yes, absolutely.
>> draft language you may want to tweak it.
it's especially important I think as to the phasing part.
>> you bet.
>> I was with y'all through the -- through 700 lavaca through the new civil courthouse, but actually when you start -- I recall considering renovation of this building.
I also recall the numbers that it would cost a significant amount of money to renovate this building to an extent that we could get another 10, 12 years of use out of, right?
so at some point you would have to weigh renovation versus demolition or something else.
>> right.
>> but then we see demolition of a whole lot of other county buildings.
now, maybe I won't be here, but I hope the next court will feel free to make the best decision at that point.
>> right.
>> you know, demolition of the eob, nobody likes the building and I understand it has a whole lot of problems, but it is a rather large building with a good location.
and when we move sccd and t.n.r.
out of it, I don't know what should happen to it.
my guess is that probably there will be different sets of facts.
it is right across from the Texas association of counties and cuc.
force so at some point in the future they may have a need for another building.
this would be super convenient for them.
and as we move southward, it becomes a whole lot less convenient for us.
>> so the phasing plan actually incorporates vacation or vacating the building, the county vacating the building and potentially selling the building.
>> yeah, I'm just saying we should have language that makes it clear that at an appropriate time you gather all the facts and you make a decision at that point.
and it's especially important, I think, for these buildings, not the ones we vacate necessarily because we intend to move a whole lot of departments into 700 lavaca.
and if we build a new civil courthouse, we plan to move a whole lot of department and offices down there.
and that will free up space, you see.
so -- and when that space is freed up, I think whoever is making the decision should feel free to look around and consider the total facts and make the best decision at that point.
>> right.
and as you vacate -- let's use the eob as an example.
as you vacate the eob, we would expect staff would come back to you for direction on do we dispose of the property in its current state, repurpose the property, do we raze it.
all of those factors come into play and those decisions will be made along the way.
and we can certainly put language into that effect.
>> one thing that I probably would be remiss on if I didn't specifically -- if I didn't specifically mention it on behalf of the criminal justice group that we've been working with is -- and it ties into this next series of slides that related to central booking was that we are -- as much pressure as we've been talking about related to civil courts, the criminal courts are swiftly running out of space.
between now and 2015 with some shuffling around at a technical level we can anticipate accommodating two to four more courts within the existing configuration and then we're out of space, but the county doesn't stop growing and the need for criminal courts doesn't stop growing.
the concept plan approved in the fall anticipated an expansion of the criminal justice center, the cjc, which require the development potential for the gault and the existing Travis County jail facility site.
so that's what's kind of leading us backwards into the development of block 126 because we have to -- we looked at multiple different scenarios for the location of central booking.
you may recall as a part of some of our work sessions with the subcommittee, the preferred location for central booking was right across the street from the potential long-term criminal justice facility which is the site of a parking garage.
and we also had a lot of conversations about the parking assumptions for development in the downtown plan.
the parking assumptions are based on accommodating the parking need for county staff and those are essentially centralized into the block 126 development allowing central booking to be expanded with also a below grade connection to a future criminal justice center would allow us then to relocate the sheriff's central booking out of the cjc, relocate pretrial services from the gault into central booking.
would also allow us the opportunity to renovate hsh courthouse.
potentially add additional court space and gault and Travis County.
and finally -- we're getting into a hazy area for the expansion horizontally of criminal justice expansion of property there.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> a lot of fine level of detail that frankly we won't be able to resolve at a master plan level.
and after we get out -- get out projecting beyond a five to six to seven-year window, we're looking at trying to develop long-term strategies.
and again, the purpose of the master plan is to help you as a court make informed, well educated decisions about what the impacts of this thing that we can't continue to control, which is a demographic growth of Travis County, is on the needs and services and judicial programs that the county has to offer so that you have a realistic projection of the potential I am mr. Indications to you -- implications to you from a managerial perspective, from a cost perspective.
so we're trying to accommodate the program, we're trying to accommodate the need projections.
we're trying to overlay that within the context of the fiscal real estate constraints that you have, and then look at the implementations of those in terms of the context of cost.
so where we are right now is at a refinement phase related to the phasing strategies and actually taking the rough order of magnitude costs that were very conservative and at very high level last fall and having those on more detailed information related to the refinement plan.
so we're making siewmghtses about the implementation windows which are going to impact projections related to cost escalation and other things and actually refining those costs now at this level with a finer level of details we have that we've been developed we were last before you in the fall with the concept plan.
>> so this is preliminary phasing.
>> absolutely.
>> and you're taking input from the court today as to who got input last week from the justice focus group on things to be tested and tweaked to create the final phasing plan that you will bring back to court in September.
>> leslie, we have a subcommittee work session which is going to be incorporating conversations related to the refined level of phasing at the end of this month.
followed by bringing back a draft of the master plan with all incorporated refinements and comments the end of September.
anticipating being back to you with the final plan recommendations for your action and vote on the final central campus master plan in October.
it seems a little strange to be saying the final master plan approval.
but the end is in sight to the master planning process, so we're back in front of you a couple more times and we'll be tweaking and refining these last pieces.
>> but if you -- to get a good summary of some of those preliminary planning options that we looked at, I should go back and look at scenario a.
>> 2-a.
>> yes, sir.
>> that is approve understand November of 2010.
>> was I on the court back then?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think you made the motion, judge.
I'm kidding.
>> [ laughter ]
>> and it's easily available to anyone as a download document from our project website, which has a page called scenarios, and it is up near the top of that page.
>> I was a whole lot smarter a year ago.
>> one of the things that we will be bringing back in September, as steven mentioned, is again another pass at the phasing plan.
one of the things that I also want to make sure is clear is that it's not a commitment or setting in stone, but it is something that we have been trying to look at and pbo is looking at a 25 year kind of financial picture on bonds for facilities, at least a piece of those.
so the closer we get to what we can assume today as we work through September and October, the better off we'll be.
just to have information for you to use in making your decisions.
>> and in my retirement celebration I hope to stress the Travis County I helped build, not the one I helped tear down.
>> [ laughter ]
>> so we're still looking for approval of removing the data center from the master plan?
>> yes.
>> if you are so motivated to make a motion on that?
>> I think dwe that earlier.
>> we did not.
>> and we could use item 36 --
>> I move that we do it if we did not.
>> you did not.
>> move that we remove the data center from the master plan.
and that just means we will put it in leased space.
>> right.
it won't show up in the central campus master plan.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion on that motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
even by Commissioner Gomez, who is trying to distance herself from the rest of the court.
>> [ laughter ]
>> thank you again.
>> anything else?
>> no, sir.
>> so we have a couple of things back next week.
>> yes, sir.
>> try to get to it earlier.
and in the meeting.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all very much.
court members, it is 4:36 in the afternoon.
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.
