This exclusion prevents us from planning for additional development in the place where it is most likely to happen.  The exclusion also makes us look (to some) like a NIMBY neighborhood that won’t accept density, and undercuts our ability to prevail on the contested tracts referenced above, when in fact we were willing to add significant density and retail, albeit in a way that protects and buffers our existing residential neighborhood.

Some City Council members are concerned that this planning effort will offend the University, even though there is a binding Brackenridge Development Agreement between the University and the City that we would follow.  The City Council is reluctant to take a stand here, and needs to hear the neighborhood’s wishes.  We strongly believe that it is in the neighborhood’s interest to include the Brackenridge Tract in our Plan, especially in light of the Cooper Robertson proposal to add 12-15 million sq. ft of development to Brackenridge with up to 9,900 residents in 6,645 residential units, increasing our residential density by 124-164 percent!!!

If you don’t care what UT does with the land, or if you are not concerned about having the density of the WANG planning area more than doubled by UT’s proposed development, or if you would like to have twice as much traffic coursing through our neighborhood streets, then by all means, tell City Council that you like their decision to exclude the Brack Tract from our neighborhood plan.

However, if you think that our neighborhood should be able to include our objectives and interests in the plan for this tract to help prevent a doubling in density and traffic here, then LET COUNCIL KNOW!  We specifically want to include the Brackenridge Tract in the Future Land Use Map (as posted here), and also want to include the Planning Commission’s recommended Land Use chapter provisions regarding the Brackenridge Tract (posted at Land Use – WANG Brack Tract Amendments1).

Council Members Morrison and Riley have been very supportive of our planning efforts, but you can convey your desires to Council members to let them know your position from the http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm or with the contact information posted here.

The complete letter is posted here.

City Council Says “No Thanks” to Neighborhood Plan for Brackenridge Tract

By Martha DeGrasse

After three years of hard work, negotiation and compromise, the West Austin residents finally saw the proposed Central West Austin Neighborhood Plan put before the City Council last week. Although the City Council approved the neighborhood’s requested limitations on new development, some parts of West Austin were excluded from the plan. Most notable of these is the Brackenridge Tract, which includes the West Austin Youth Association and Lions Municipal Golf Course. The Brackenridge Tract is currently owned by The University of Texas, which has made clear its intention to increase the revenue it receives from the property.

Throughout the West Austin Neighborhood Group’s three years of meeting with city planners, the Brackenridge Tract was part of the neighborhood plan. The neighbors’ stated goal from the outset was to help plan for “intelligent” development of the Brackenridge Tract.  So many members of WANG were very disappointed at what they saw as the eleventh hour exclusion of the Brackenridge Tract from the plan. “We are concerned that the Council’s decision to exclude the Brackenridge Tract could have a dramatic and adverse impact on our neighborhood since it would allow an immense and unplanned development,” says Michael R. Cannatti, secretary and past president of WANG.

The university is in the process of considering many proposals for development of the Brackenridge Tract, but the one that has gotten the most attention is a plan from Cooper, Robertson & Partners, a New York-based architect group. That proposal would add up to 6,600 new residential units to the neighborhood, more than doubling the number of homes in the part of West Austin that is west of MoPac.

The decision to exclude the Brackenridge Tract from the Central West Austin Neighborhood Plan was not made by the entire City Council. The council’s integrity officer asked asked council members Laura Morrison and Chris Riley to recuse themselves from the decision. They both have relatives who work at The University of Texas, and UT could clearly be affected by the Brackenridge Tract’s inclusion in the plan. Council Member Bill Spelman also recused himself because he is a professor at UT. Ironically, WANG members suspect that these Council members who have ties to UT may have been more supportive of the neighborhood group than some of the other council members.

Although this is a disappointing time for WANG, the group’s members realize that they have made some good progress. The neighborhood plan calls for restrictions on development along Windsor Road, Exposition and Enfield, areas that were once considered likely to be heavily developed with many more apartments.  “To the extent that we have avoided that, we have had some success,” says Cannatti.

In general, we believe that the draft chapters reflect a lot of work and captures many of the points the community made during the process.  However, there are two very significant omissions because the planning process failed to meaningfully address the Brackenridge and Austin State School tracts in terms of how they fit within our vision for the future of our neighborhood.  Therefore, the draft chapters must be improved if this plan is to help us preserve our neighborhood.  Those of us in the neighborhoods on both sides of MoPac who have been working on the Plan for the last several years have submitted detailed comments and have proposed changes to the  draft plan during the process.  For example, our revisions to the “Transportation” chapter are posted at Neighborhood Stakeholder Revisions to Draft Transportation Chapter _March, 2010_, and our revisions to the “Land Use” chapter are posted at Neighborhood Stakeholder Revisions to Draft Land Use Chapter.

Without attempting to capture all of the details, here are some basic points the City needs to hear regarding the “Vision Statement” and the “Land Use” chapter.

1.  The Staff’s “Vision Statement” language in the Plan — that “new office, commercial, retail or multi-family development should be located along the edges of the neighborhood” — sounds safe enough, but “edges” is too vague to provide a meaningful guideline, and to the extent its meaning can be gleaned from the Plan it includes locations most of us would not want to see new development, such as “Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake and 35th Street,” Lake Austin Boulevard, Lions Municipal Golf Course, WAYA, Johnson Creek Trail, Eiler’s Park and Deep Eddy Pool, “the medical district located between 38th and 31st Street between Lamar Boulevard and Shoal Creek,” and  Shoal Creek Hike and Bike Trail is the edge of the neighborhood as well as Lamar Boulevard.  We most certainly do not envision “new office, commercial, retail or multi-family development” being located at these “edges.” It is also unclear whether “new” means a commercial or multi-family use on a property not now being used as such or whether it refers to redevelopment of existing commercial sites. We spent months developing a Future Land Use Map to establish the location of future land uses.  Accordingly,  we recommend  that development or redevelopment of existing commercial or multi-family property should be in accordance with the Future Land Use map  adopted by the community.  Any new commercial or multifamily development should  be located on the State School or the Brackenridge properties if they are developed (as opposed to existing residential areas).

2. The current draft of the Land Use chapter is a good first step but it needs to do a more complete job of reflecting neighborhood interest in preventing increased traffic and parking on neighborhood streets and in guarding against potential negative effects of future redevelopment of  W. 35^th Street properties on the abutting single family homes. We also need additional language to more fully express our concern about the impact of  redevelopment of the commercial properties between 34^th and 35^th Street on the school and the neighborhood.  The language in the Plan should be revised to more fully and clearly make these points.

3.  Another major problem with the current draft of the neighborhood plan is that City Staff has not allowed the Brackenridge Tract to be included in the Land Use chapter, and has provided very limited planning options for the Austin State School tract.  In the current draft, the Land Use chapter would appear to allow multi-family along the Exposition side of the Austin State School tract, contrary to the overwhelming weight of opinion of the neighborhood.  In addition, the Land Use chapter entirely fails to address the community’s stated preferences for the Brackenridge Tract.  The first preference is to encourage UT to keep the Lions Municipal Golf Course, West Austin Youth Association, and Field Research Laboratory uses in place with consideration made for additional recreational opportunities on site, and to otherwise comply with the parameters established by the 1989 Brackenridge Tract Development Agreement.  The second preference is that, in the event that the Brackenridge Tract is (re)developed, it should be done in harmony with the adjacent neighborhood, transportation system, and natural resources, as set forth in the neighborhood’s proposed revisions to the Land Use Chapter.

Please attend the Open House to provide feedback on the drafts.  You can also take an on-line survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XQ3GVZ8 where you will be shown a summary of the Plan and given an opportunity to comment.

The Austin-American Statesman maintains a web page (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/local/brackenridge.html) which contains information and articles concerning the future of the Brackenridge Tracts Muny golf course, biological field laboratory, and other portions of 345 prime acres along the Colorado River in West Austin.

In a recent article by Asher Price (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/22/1022brack.html), it was reported that the recommendations from Cooper, Robertson & Partners LLP (CR&P) for the redevelopment of the Brackenridge tract call for denser construction than City of Austin rules would generally allow.  Resolution of the conflict between the City’s rules and the development proposals will have a significant impact on the character and quality of West Austin as efforts are made to encourage growth without destroying the established West Austin neighborhood.

Plans for UT land call for denser building than city allows

By Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, October 22, 2009

Recommendations by a consultant for the redevelopment of the Brackenridge tract , the 350-acre University of Texas-owned land west of downtown, call for denser construction than City of Austin rules would generally allow.

The difference draws a line of control between the city and the university over the land and reopens a broader discussion of how to encourage growth in West Austin.

The two plans by the New York-based consulting firm, hired by the UT SystemBoard of Regents, imagine the Brackenridge tract — now home to a municipal golf course, a university field lab, stores, offices, restaurantsand two-story apartment complexes along Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake — redeveloped as a densely built, walkable, close-in alternative to suburban sprawl.

The redevelopment plans call for about half the area as open space and half as development. The city’s current watershed regulations generally allow a maximum of 40 percent impervious cover, a technical term for asphalt and structures.

“Overall, impervious cover assumed under both Plans would exceed that allowed by current City requirements,” according to the report released this month by Cooper, Robertson & Partners LLP.

Under the plans, buildings would also be constructed closer to Lady Bird Lake than allowed in Austin’s regulations. The city’s waterfront overlay regulations impose development setbacks from the lake of between 300 and 400 feet. The Brackenridge Park concept plan proposes setbacks between 235 and 260 feet; the Brackenridge Village concept plan proposes setbacks between 228 and 350 feet.

A 30-year agreement inked in 1989 between the city and the Board of Regents lays out development regulations less stringent than those proposed in the consultants’ plans and those currently on the books elsewhere in the city. Under the Brackenridge Agreement, setbacks are to be 150 to 200 feet, and the areas now covered by two apartment complexes can be redeveloped with up to 75 percent impervious cover, said George Zapalac, development services manager for the city.

It’s unclear whether UT would have to follow city land-use rules when the pact expires in 2019. In the past, UT has argued that it won’t have to because it’s a state entity. The city has argued that its land-use rules would apply to nonuniversity structures, such as condos.

“The Brackenridge Tract is an urban infill site and the plans are consistent with the City’s policies for densification within the City… and the reduction of sprawl in areas outside of the City, particularly environmentally sensitive areas,” the report says.

The plans “seek to preserve natural features on the Brackenridge Tract, but the site, as a whole, does not contribute significantly to the natural systems of the region, to its ecology or habitats, or to the Edwards Aquifer,” the report says. “It is a disturbed site impacted by urban growth.”

Some environmentalists appear unlikely to be assuaged by the trade-off argument: Build here instead of out there.

“It’s not an urban space,” said Mary Arnold, a longtime environmentalist who also serves on the board of the West Austin Neighborhood Group, which counts the Brackenridge tract in its territory and has announced its opposition to the consultant’s recommendations. “More impervious cover means more runoff means more dirty water in our drinking water.”

But Sinclair Black, an architect who teaches urban planning at UT and is not affiliated with the project, said the Brackenridge tract is “very ripe for this kind of development.”

“The maximum benefit to the environment is to have the maximum density as close to the center as possible, thereby reducing the carbon footprint,” he said. “Sustainability begins and ends with location.”

The report recommends specific stormwater runoff strategies, including ponds, strips of vegetation and drainage ditches to “attenuate the impact of increased impervious cover.”

The impervious cover rules are meant to reduce the amount of rainwater runoff from streets and other paved surfaces, which in turn reduces pollutants carried into streams and into the river, Zapalac said.

The setback rules are meant to preserve open space, the character of the shore and access to the river, he said.

Because the plans are proposed and have not been accepted by regents, it would be speculative to address questions about impervious cover, according to Florence Mayne, executive director of the UT System’s real estate office.

“If this were subject to city review,” said Zapalac, “if they’re not meeting normal regulations, we would see what they are doing in exchange, or what public benefit there is to the proposal that can be achieved through deviation from normal standard.”

He mentioned, as an example, a deal reached last year about a proposed condo development on East Riverside Drive. The developer was allowed to build within setback limits of Lady Bird Lake in exchange for donating land to extend the hike-and-bike trail across the site and reducing the project size.

In many respects the development plans for the Brackenridge tract propose an idyll of dense, mixed use redevelopment associated with environmentally progressive cities: The plans call for a network of bike trails and community gardens; energy efficient buildings; widespread rainwater collection; parks; and an extension of the hike-and-bike trail around Lady Bird Lake.

In turn, the close-in development will mean people would take 45 to 50 percent fewer off-site trips than they would in a typical suburban development, according to the consultant. (Members of the West Austin Neighborhood Group have said the spike in population — as many as 8,700 new housing units are planned for the area — is sure to tie up traffic there.)

The consultant was charged by the regents with coming up with plans that, among other things, promote sustainability and environmental friendliness, said Matt Flores, a spokesman for the UT System.

In some places, environmental features of the proposed redevelopment are left vague. The three-volume study mentions “green roof technology” several times, but does not explain what that means exactly, or how the university would ensure builders comply. Rhetorically, too, the report discusses some environmental features in the passive voice, with little elaboration on how they will be implemented.

“The prevailing winds, blowing from the southeast to the northwest, can be captured for natural ventilation and reduce energy demands,” reads one passage. “Green roofs will be incorporated to reduce both the heat island effect and the HVAC energy demands. Within the park system, renewable energy generation technologies, including solar, wind and biomass, will be employed to generate power and shared within the building sites and common areas.”

Meanwhile, other parts of the report are quite specific. Bicycle lanes along city streets will be 5 feet wide. A multiuse trail will be 10 to 16 feet wide. Live oak trees will line Lake Austin Boulevard. Palm trees, cedar elm and red oak trees will line parks, promenades, plazas and the developed portions of the lakefront. At least 80 percent of the “plant palette” will comprise native and adapted plants well-suited to the area.

asherprice@statesman.com; 445-3643

As reported by Ralph K.M. Haurwitz on his October 12, 2009 blog:

“Some readers have asked how much the University of Texas System Board of Regents is spending for the Brackenridge tract development proposals by Cooper, Robertson & Partners LLP and its subcontractors.

I’ve previously reported that the maximum possible total of fees and expenses under the Cooper firm’s contract with the regents is $5.1 million.

Here is some additional detail from Florence Mayne, the UT System’s director of real estate:

The total budget is $5,139,882. That budget consists of a professional fee component and a reimbursable expense component.

The total professional fee budgeted is $4,590,782. Of that budgeted amount, $87,552.77 remains to be paid when all work is completed.

The total amount of the fee that Cooper Robertson earned was $2,060,920; the remainder of the budgeted amount (which remainder is $2,529,862) was budgeted for Cooper Robertson to pay its subcontractors (almost all of whom are here in Austin). (UT pays Cooper Robertson, and Cooper Robertson then pays its subs.)

The total expense amount budgeted is $549,100. Of that budgeted amount, a total of $299,481.83 in expenses has been reimbursed.

So, a total of $4,802,711.06 of the overall budgeted amount of $5,139,882 has been paid.”

Here are links to several news articles about the History and the Marker:

• Muny’s Past Might Yield New Future <http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/archive/102608muny.html?cxntlid=inform_sr>
• Historical Agency Altered Marker Text <http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/09/0809muny.html?cxntlid=inform_sr>
• UT Chancellor Suggests Second Marker <http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/21/0821muny.html?cxntlid=inform_sr>

The City of Austin is creating a new Comprehensive Plan for Austin which will set forth the city’s policies for growth and development.  The existing Comprehensive Plan (the Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan (ATCP)) was developed during the 1970s and adopted in 1979, but even with various amendments and updates, the ATCP remains a product of its time and does not address many contemporary issues facing the City such as sustainability and climate change.  The lack of a contemporary, community-based vision for the City’s future has lead to many “ad hoc” policy directives.

An overview of the Comprehensive Plan process for the next two or so years is available, including a recent “Comprehensive Plan Kick-Off” Event.

The City has posted a survey to obtain citizen input on some of the questions from the October 12 Kick-Off Event concerning what makes Austin great and what could be improved.  Survey answers will form the foundation of the first Community Forum Series, the week of November 9.

In addition, Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Task Force is being formed.  The application form for the Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Task Force is available for download.  Interested in serving, or know someone who might be perfect for the task force? Fill it out or pass it on. Instructions for submitting the application are included.

Sign up to receive all email updates from the Comprehensive Planning Staff at NPZD: <http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/contact_info_ncp.cfm>.  Please help encourage city-wide participation in OUR Comprehensive Plan
by forwarding this information.  Individuals’ involvement can be minimal or extensive — but the sooner
they tune it, the more sense it will make as we proceed…

Additional information is posted at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/compplan/.

Brackenridge Tract Position Statement (August 25, 2008)

Having heard from stakeholders through public testimony, surveys and numerous meetings since the University of Texas System announced that it would consider redevelopment of the Brackenridge Tract, the 345 acre tract of land located in the heart of Tarrytown and West Austin, the West Austin Neighborhood Group Executive Committee advocates the following position:

General Propositions:

Any potential redevelopment of the Brackenridge Tract:

• Must preserve its invaluable urban greenspace and its remarkable trees;
• Must preserve waterfront land and recognize the City of Austin’s Waterfront Overlay;
• Should not increase traffic in the Tarrytown and Deep Eddy neighborhoods;  (If additional traffic volumes are generated as a result of redevelopment, such traffic should be directed away from our existing residential neighborhoods.  There should be no street access to such redevelopment along Enfield Road between Lake Austin Boulevard and Exposition Boulevard that would promote the use of adjacent and nearby neighborhood streets as arteries.)
• Should comply with all City of Austin codes and ordinances as well as its zoning and land use regulations; and
• Should be limited to and not exceed the parameters established by the 1989 Brackenridge Tract Development Agreement negotiated in good faith by the University of Texas Systems, the City of Austin and the Austin community.

Specific Tracts:

• The Lions Municipal Golf Course (141.38 Acres) should remain an affordable, public golf course in perpetuity with consideration made for the addition of non-golfing recreational opportunities on site.  We actively support the acquisition of this tract by the City of Austin utilizing any available means including cash and non-cash alternatives.
• The West Austin Youth Association Tract (14.56 Acres) should remain under the control of this nationally recognized, privately funded, non-profit organization that provides positive recreational opportunities through 30 separate programs for more than 4,000 youngsters annually from throughout Austin.
• The University of Texas at Austin Brackenridge Field Laboratory (81.97 Acres) should remain at its current unique and irreplaceable location.
• The Colorado Apartment and Brackenridge Apartment Tracts (74.24 Acres) should be redeveloped to include denser graduate student, doctoral candidate and faculty housing as well as neighborhood retail/neighborhood mixed use development, the latter at a level and in a manner that does not exceed the terms of the 1989 Brackenridge Tract Development Agreement for non-university purposes.
• The Deep Eddy Tract (16.42 Acres) that includes the Gables Apartments, CVS Pharmacy and 7 Eleven, if chosen to be redeveloped, should be redeveloped in such a way as to maximize the protection of the Deep Eddy neighborhood adjacent by mitigating the potential for related cut-through traffic and overflow parking.  Further, any new construction should transition away from the residential portion of the adjacent neighborhood.
• The Boat Town Tract (2.58 Acres) including Oyster Landing should remain unchanged.
• The Park Street Tract (13.21 Acres) that includes the LCRA and ancillary surface parking should remain unchanged, unless sufficient free public parking remains on site to meet the parking demand of the Boat Town Tract as well as any additional development.
• The Randall’s Tract (2.64 Acres) should remain under its current land use though reconfiguration of the site itself might be beneficial.
• Any potential redevelopment of the Lions, Park Street or WAYA tracts should be compatible along Enfield Road with the adjacent Tarrytown neighborhood.

Background and Comment

The West Austin Neighborhood Group has taken a very active role in this process over the two years since the Board of Regents announced their intention to reevaluate the Tract’s status. The Regents are under pressure from some in the public sector to make better use of their vast assets, one of which that just happens to be the Brackenridge Tract.  They also are being approached by those in the private sector who seek monetary gain from the redevelopment of the Brackenridge Tract.  We feel strongly that any opportunity on this Tract, for University purpose or private gain, should be weighed against any adverse impact that it might have on West Austin and its citizens.

Colonel Brackenridge gave the University this Tract “for the purpose of advancing and promoting University education.”  We realize that the Brackenridge Tract, as a whole, represents a significant opportunity for both the University of Texas and the community, but that opportunity does not lie solely in its purported development potential.

Brackenridge Field Laboratory

One of the University’s most highly acclaimed and nationally ranked programs is tied to the Brackenridge Field Labs.  The unique character and proximity of this tract as well as the established research history cannot be replicated elsewhere.  The facility currently is underutilized and accessibility to and facilities for the public is poor.  To address this deficiency, advocates for the College of Natural Sciences have begun the process of planning for a biodiversity institute as well as public facilities that would engage and interact with the public and other educational institutions.  Furthermore, such an institute might deliver research that could generate ample revenue for the University of Texas to further its mission.

Graduate Student Housing

The reputation of colleges and universities are dependent on the reputation and work of graduate students and doctoral candidates.  Graduate student housing is an attractor for these top tier students.  Most highly ranked peer universities have such housing.  This environment cannot be replicated with voucher programs, which notably can be changed or eliminated thus offering no assurances to these students.  Neither can the proximity to campus, the strong sense of community nor many of the amenities enjoyed by this unique, diverse and highly educated population.  Further, meeting a need for affordable housing in an increasingly unaffordable city, these apartments are critical to the advancement of the mission of the University of Texas to be a world class university.

It is worth noting that the University does receive rental income from these properties, the difference in pricing when compared to market rents being that there is neither a land component nor a real property tax component in the calculation of rental rates.  For the West Austin community, the primary benefit of student housing is that these students are inclined to take public transportation thus minimizing the negative impact of additional traffic and congestion on our residential streets.

Lions Municipal Golf Course (Muny) and West Austin Youth Association (WAYA)

Consistently, we have advocated for the preservation of both Muny and WAYA.  Both of these facilities provide unique recreational opportunities for University students, faculty, staff and their families as well as the Austin community as a whole.  Our recent survey showed overwhelming support among users and non-users of both Muny and WAYA to preserve these two facilities.

In simple terms, the current uses for both tracts are not economically the highest and best use.  However, both stand as irreplaceable community assets.

Historic Lions Municipal Golf Course is the only public 18 hole golf course west of Interstate Highway 35.  It is affordable thus providing access to folks throughout the community, including the University community.  It is inclusionary rather than exclusionary, as some private schemes would be.  It is very heavily used and does generate fee income for the University of Texas System.  Muny is also a unique urban greenspace, something that is highly valued by Austinites and that is an attractor for people and businesses wanting to invest in Austin.

WAYA serves over 4,000 youngsters throughout Austin each year enriching their lives and that of their families by providing safe, engaging, and structured recreational opportunities.  Furthermore, WAYA has tapped in to the University of Texas as a resource for its primary teaching mission.  The value of WAYA can’t be measured in dollars and its impact can’t be quantified.  Lessons learned and benefits gained by participating children will simply continue to resonate throughout our community.

Traffic & Congestion

Any redevelopment of any part of the Brackenridge Tract and its viability are going to be limited by traffic issues.  The Tract is bounded by 2 east-west neighborhood arteries in Enfield Road and Lake Austin Boulevard and 1 north-south neighborhood artery in Exposition Boulevard. At times during the day, these three streets already are impassable.  The two key points of ingress/egress to the Tract with MoPac/Loop 1 are at Enfield Road and at Lake Austin Boulevard   TxDOT has no plans at this time and to the best of our knowledge has committed no resources, nor has any resources available, to the redesign and reconstruct these intersections. Cost estimates casually range from $50 million to $150 million.  It is not feasible to consider the reconstruction of these interchanges, and as a result, the scale of any redevelopment should be limited to the existing arterial capacity.  Furthermore, cut-through traffic and overflow parking, as a result of redevelopment, into the adjacent residential neighborhoods is unacceptable as it denigrates our neighbors’ quality of life, safety and security.

Water Quality

Most of the land in the Tract lies within either the Lake Austin Watershed or the Town Lake Watershed and is within our Drinking Water Protection Zone.  Degradation of same is adverse to the environment as the well being of the citizens of Austin and those downstream from Austin.  Even within the framework of the 1989 Brackenridge Tract Development Agreement, adverse consequences could be expected because impervious cover would exceed the 30% allowable in the suburban watershed under municipal codes.

Conclusion

The University of Texas is one of the wealthiest educational institutions in America.  It and the University of Texas System have millions of acres of land and a $25 billion endowment.  The UT System recently approved the forward sale of $1 billion in oil and gas revenues.  In Travis County alone, they own hundreds of parcels with an aggregate land value exceeding $1 billion. Many of these parcels are underutilized. Some parcels are being held for investment purposes.  Despite declining State support for higher education, which we strongly oppose, the University and the System have ample assets at their disposal without the need to destroy these community assets and adversely impact one of the City’s most cherished residential neighborhoods.

In regard to the possible establishment of a medical school in Austin, Interim University of Texas Chancellor Kenneth Shine was recently quoted as saying, “A lot of it depends on the ability of the community to come up with resources as opposed to going to the state or other places.” “Support would be needed from hospital systems, the health district, the business community, philanthropists and potentially the City of Austin and Travis County,” he added. While the benefits of such an institution could be significant and desirous for Austin, such assistance to the University should come with a price.

In addition to the millions and millions of dollars already generously given to the University of Texas by the people of Austin and for filling up its stadiums year after year, perhaps it is time that the University of Texas and the University of Texas System gave back to the citizens of Austin for all we have done for them.  Preservation of Muny and WAYA in perpetuity and the sensitive redevelopment of the remainder of the Tract to meet the terms of Colonel Brackenridge’s gift befit a university of the first class where what happens “changes the world.”