City Council Work Session Transcript – 10/04/2016 Title: ATXN 24/7 Recording Channel: 6 - ATXN Recorded On: 10/4/2016 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 10/4/2016 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== [9:14:32 AM] >> Tovo: Good morning, I'm mayor pro tem Kathie tovo. I'm sitting in for Mayor Adler today. He is out on city business. I am going to convene this business at 9:15 P.M. -- 9:15 A.M. It's been a long day already. We have no items pulled other than the champions item that was pulled by councilmember Gallo. I think we'll wait until she gets here to talk about that item and we will just jump into the grove. As you all probably remember we agreed as a council to postpone it that night and to try to have some of our content-laden discussions here at the work session. So today we'll be focused on transportation issues and then we'll talk more about what we want to focus next week's conversation on with regard to the grove. But maybe before we get started we should just talk generally that we have a few colleagues missing. One of the things I would like to do before we wrap up is what we have been doing, scheduling Thursday items that we might want to pull for more discussion, items that we had questions pending with staff and that kind of thing, but I think we should wait until councilmember Zimmerman is here and maybe a few others to get a better sense of that. So why don't we jump into the discussion of the grove and transportation issues. We have the staff here prepared to talk about that. I thought we might start by talking through some of the amendments that have been made by councilmembers pool and Gallo that relate to transportation. Councilmember pool, do you want to take us through some of yours as a starting place? >> Yeah. >> Kitchen: Do you know how far away councilmember Gallo is because we could make a few announce minutes and do that first if she's close. >> Tovo: We're not sure. We have reached out to her staff and understand that she's on route, but I'm not sure how soon. If there are announcements we can certainly take those up. >> Kitchen: I just have one that will probably take one minute. >> Tovo: Feel free to [9:16:33 AM] elaborate. >> Kitchen: It's not really an announcement, just a reminder. I've talked to a lot of folks already, but just a reminder on the bond oversight task force. Actually, I think I've already talked to everybody around the table, so never mind! I just wanted to remind folks to get their sew owe the sooner we get that appointed, the sooner the bond oversight task force can get going. >> Tovo: Thanks for that he minder. Have any members been appointed? >> Kitchen: There are two that have been appointed so far. >> Tovo: Great. We all need to be appointing for the city manager advisory body as well. So I don't know that any of us have made appointments to that group. So that's another pending one that we want to get up and running pretty quickly. Councilmember Houston? >> Houston: Tell me a little bit more about the city manager advisory group. >> Tovo: Isn't it through boards and commissions? And just to be clear, we're talking about the boards and commissions item on our council agenda, which is item number 47. Councilmember Houston. Oh, you had some more information about that. I believe when we talked about the process for hiring the new city manager we talked about each of us identifying one member to serve on a group that would convene, would meet with the community, would get community feedback about the permanent city manager. >> Houston: And I'm sorry, I don't know that -- I think that I said that I wanted to be that responsible person and it sounded like a nominating committee to me, that they would kind of glean through all the blixs and then make some -- all the applications and then make some recommendations on that. Did we vote on that? >> Tovo: We did not vote. That we're definitely not posted to talk about. I would say if there's [9:18:34 AM] not -- if the feeling is we need to have more council discussion about it then I think it would be appropriate for somebody to bring forward a resolution so we can have that resolution on how to proceed. Thanks for those thoughts. >> Kitchen: I would just echo that. I think we need to vote on whatever process we decide on, I think we should vote. >> Tovo: Great. >> Kitchen: And when you're ready I have one other announcement. >> Tovo: Sure, go ahead. >> Kitchen: Tomorrow, I think I mentioned it to some of you, but not all of you. Tomorrow at our mobility committee meeting -- Ann is looking at me, I can announce this, right? >> The best way to announce this is the message board that is open for all of you at any time. >> Kitchen: But the problem is people have to go and look at the message board. >> That's true. That's why it's open all the time for you all to use. >> Kitchen: On the message board you will see something on tomorrow's mobility committee meeting that you might be interested related to codenext, and a discussion of policy issues related to mobility in codenext. So I'll stop there. How's that? >> Tovo: Okay. Any other council items that people wanted to pull for today, but didn't get an opportunity to do so? Councilmember Casar. >> Casar: Not Chuy's but if the atx people would not be pulling in close on that. If we could get some words from legal maybe in an email if we could set up -- they did anyways. [Laughter] About a committee has to do with personnel matters -- if the committee has to do with personnel matters if there's any executive session protections for such a board or commission and for the appointment of such a board or commission if we structure a certain way if it might qualify under the [9:20:35 AM] state law or should. I think that would be useful information as we discuss the appointments and the process. >> Tovo: Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's go to our main topic for today, which is the grove. And councilmember pool, if you would like to talk to us about some of the amendments that you had brought forward for consideration. These are all posted on the message board. >> Pool: Thanks, mayor pro tem. I'll draw your attention to my amendment package number one, and I'll talk about two items on there. The first one on page 1 and the second one on Paige 2. The first one on page 1 is the trip count, which is a traffic count currently. We're looking at just under 24,000 unadjusted total trips a day. My strategy for rebalancing to try to get better affordability and mobility is down to 18,000. So just a little bit of framing for that. The traffic count sets the maximum level of intensity for the development, it's the overall cap within which county applicant can allocate what they want to build, how much goes to residential versus commercial. And if we want to balance that to 18,000 unajusted trips, that will be a mixed use development that serves as a neighborhood center, which is the goal, not a regional destination. This site is more appropriate for a smaller dense development. It's more consistent with the surroundings neighborhoods. There will be less congestion and traffic is a huge issue for -- I'm sure for the developer as well as the neighbors. And then we can have additional residential units. So that's the first revision. And then the second one I have some questions on the bike lane. Page two, the top one talks about bike lane. The top proposal talks about only a shared use path on the grove [9:22:35 AM] property and I understand the applicant has submitted a concept plan restoring the bike lane on bull creek. My proposal is on bull creek that connects to the bicycle master plan that is included in the plan. And this fits in with my request for my amendment for lower unadjusted total trips per day by making the intersection at 45th and bull creek a better functioning intersection because there will be fewer vehicles and better functioning at the intersection may make it possible to amend the required improvements at that intersection, which could save the developer some money. And provide space needed for the northbound bike lane. So I understand our transportation staff are here. I have some questions about bike lane. >> Tovo: I think we should take issues up one at a time. If you would like to focus first on theike lane issue and then let's get back. Some of us may have questions about the traffic count calculation and where that has gone to through the process. >> Pool: Great. Morning, Mr. Spillar. >> Hi. I have my team here to try to respond to questions. Thank you for inviting us. So the question I believe is with regards to the northbound bicycle lane being placed on the street versus a path. To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, we've not received a new plan from the developer that would suggest how to build it. We did receive -- when we're looking at alternatives, preliminary concepts for the bike lane and you are engineers were concerned with how it interacted with the intersection and so that the multi-use path was preferred by engineers and our bike program as we move forward simply from a design perspective there. >> Pool: Talk to me a little bit about path versus lane. How do you distinguish between the two. Because if people are listening again they may think it's the same thing. >> Sure. In a very simplistic concept [9:24:36 AM] is that it would be a wide sidewalk or wider sidewalk that would be wide enough to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle access much like -- it would be in fact wider probably than the path along Barton springs that is for bikes only. We don't encourage pedestrians. So the idea is that it is an off road behind the curb place that bicycles and pedestrians can operate. This is to accommodate really the more timid bicycle riders because they can ride in a more safe environment. The -- for lack of a better definition, class 1 bicycle riders that feel comfortable merging with traffic and doing traffic are legal to be in the road themselves, and so I would still foresee some bicycle users in the road itself, but for the more novice bicycle rider they would be on the pathway. What's ironic is actually when we go further north into Williamson county the portions of the city there in Williamson county they actually prefer how to -- had a stated preference positive bicycle multi-use pathways as opposed to bike lanes. Either are acceptable for providing bicycle pathways. >> Pool: Where is the bicycle path right now? >> Right now the -- I'm sorry, Eric Ballard, Austin transportation department. Right now it's a shared use path sharing with pedestrians along the east side of bull creek road running along the site. >> That's the proposed. What's the existing? >> Pool: My question -- >> Tovo: Would you mind repeating that, please? >> Sure. Right now what is proposed, what we have reviewed is a shared use path along the east side of the bull creek road adjacent to the grove property. >> Tovo: Thanks. >> Pool: And my question [9:26:37 AM] is where is the bike lane currently today? >> Currently it is in the street. It ends before -- going northbound it ends before 45th street. >> Pool: So the proposal would remove it from the street and put a pathway on the sidewalk. >> Correct, a shared use path. A wider facility off the street. >> Pool: Okay. And I understand the zoning and platting commission recommended that the bicycle lane be restored to bull creek road? >> Correct. >> Pool: And it would be on both sides of the can road. Would that be a full use for bicycle commuters? Would that be the Normal place for them on the road, both sides? >> Right. So already proposed is a southbound that would be in the street. Then the northbound what the planning commission was requesting would be a northbound only bike lane in the street with still maintaining the shared use path I believe the applicant said the shared use path would be necessarily because it wouldn't necessarily have to accommodate bicyclists. >> Pool: And in the bicycle master plan what's recommended for bull creek road in the bicycle master plan? >> That I'm not aware of. >> So councilmember, often in the bicycle master plan a route is identified, but the actual design of the route depends on actual situational analysis and that's where I would put this, that if the bicycle master plan called for a bike lane, we often get into the design process and find that we need to do something different. So you will see that routinely with the bicycle facilities. >> Pool: I think the importance of these conversations we're having at work session and how we're doing it is so that we can have the areas that haven't been nailed down with specifics. And this is one. I would -- have you received and approved a concept to restore on street bicycle lanes? >> If you're asking for a [indiscernible], no. I did ask staff if it's something that will be proposed and we need to see it and review it. [9:28:37 AM] >> So you don't have anything like that. >> No. >> But councilmember, as I said, in the initial concepts as we were developing them, our engineers did have concern of an online -- on street bicycle line at the intersection. So -- >> Pool: And what happened to that original plan, that original concept? >> I don't know that it was further developed after -- after the concerns were expressed? >> Pool: Did you all reject it? Do you remember? >> Ultimately what we reviewed and approved was the shared use path going along the street, off the street and then sort of terminating at the intersection with 45th. They could get on the street at the intersection and go through it on the street or they could choose to cross as pedestrians through the crosswalk to the northside of the intersection and continue on. >> Pool: What happens on the northside where bull creek road goes up to Perry lane and then mopac? >> Right now they would be sharing in the street. >> Pool: And then I have questions on the transportation demand management program. >> Tovo: Let's a wait on that. Does anybody else have a question based on what we have discussed so far? Okay. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Just for clarification, so north of 45th there's no bike lane you said, is that what you're saying? Did I hear you correct? >> There's onstreet parking on both sides and no designated bike lane. >> So basically the bike lane dead ends at 45th? >> Correct. >> Kitchen: I'm trying to remember is there a bike lane on 45th itself? I'm trying to remember. >> Pool: 45th is too dangerous for bikes so it's not part of the bicycle master plan, but currently bull creek does have a striped line on the pavement. >> Kitchen: So regardless of where the bike lane is, on the road, it's a dead end [9:30:40 AM] essentially from a bicycle standpoint. >> Correct. >> Kitchen: That would be something that would be of concern to me in that aspect. I don't know -- I don't know whose responsibility that is, but that would be something that would be of concern to me. And let me ask the second question relates to the -- in street or on the pavement. Or shared use. What was the reasoning for the recommendation to put it back in the road? Because usually those shared use ones are safer? They always -- they feel safer. If you're not in the road. Do you know what the commission was looking at and why they're -- >> If I remember correctly, they had some concerns about the interactions. There are several driveways proposed with the development on the east side of bull creek road. Every time you have an interaction, conflict point, that's always an area of concern. I think they felt that if they were in the street it was kind of a more common situation and probably less -- maybe a safer condition for the cyclists who were just continuing. >> Kitchen: You would have an interaction on the shared use path or the street. >> The shared use path would be several feet off the feet, so maybe a driver turning may not be as aware of a cyclist trying to cross the driveway as if they were right adjacent to a driver and could see them a little bit easier. >> Kitchen: Was there any other aspect of their discussion? Of their reasoning for that? >> I think that was - - I think there were people from the public also commenting, if I'm a cyclist I prefer to be in the street where I'm better seen and feel safer. I think that is part of the reason. >> Kitchen: Thank you. >> And to reiterate, councilmember. Having the multi-use path does not prevent a savvy bicycle user to stay in the street, but it does provide a place for novices or younger users or even older users to use a path that [9:32:42 AM] think might feel more comfortable with. >> Tovo: Councilmember Gallo, did you have your light on? >> Gallo: No, but I did have a question. The path we're talking about is similar to the one on Cesar Chavez. Is that a similar concept? So we have an off street pedestrian and bike pathway on the on the northside of Cesar Chavez. >> Yes, part of the led. >> Gallo: That's a similar concept? >> Probably wider, councilmember, in order to handle pedestrian as well as the -- Lance Armstrong is primarily for bicycles even though we have joggers on it, and you can correct me. >> Right. I believe what's proposed is 10 or 12 feet. I can't remember offhand. That's generally wide enough for the shared use. >> Gallo: And visual similar -- things that we can look at that we drive past that we can see what the concept is, so knowing that it's wider than that is helpful too. One of the things, councilmember kitchen, to answer your concern about the biking safety abilities north on bull creek north of 45th north of bull creek, that was one of the reasons why the traffic mitigation fund something we're trying to propose because there are additional neighborhood safety concerns that expand beyond the immediate location of this project that I think we do need to address and we all know how difficult it is to find funding for things like that. So that is one of the things that could be helped, the mitigation fund would be the geographic area of that would be similar to the multimodal, which would go all the way to Hancock, which would address both the sidewalks, the missing sidewalks on bull creek north of 45th and also bicycles. So it's -- it is a concern. [9:34:42 AM] I drive that section all the time, but finding the funding to be able to address the safety concerns -- because there's missing sidewalks there too. And depending on where the children that live in the grove go to school, there is a possibility that it might be highland park so it becomes a safer route to school also. It might be breaker woods, but -- breaker woods, but at this point what the school district might be determining as far as boundaries five or 10 years from now would be unknown, but it would be more than likely a walking zone from the school to highland park. >> Tovo: Councilmember pool? >> Pool: Could you describe the intersection at 45th and bull creek road and about its alignment? Because I think the current traffic impact analysis includes a left turn lane on -- to go east on 45th street? So what happens to the bikes if they're on -- I'm going to call it sidewalks. People understand, rather than shared use path. And then I'm going to call a lane on the street, if we could talk in those kind of terms so it's clear. So for people who are on a bike -- on the street and they get to the intersection, now their lane has become a left turn lane. And then they move over at some point to go north across the 45th street intersection. Then if you're on the sidewalk, just walk me through because I think there is a swerve in the road with the new lane that would be constructed. I don't know if it's on the applicant's easement and they're taking it out of the road. Maybe we have some schematics to show. I'm concerned about the safety, both people pushing strollers or who might be on roller skates or a bicycle or people in vehicles. At that point of intersection there. [9:36:46 AM] Can you describe that for me and the safety issues. >> The current proposal is I should say right now there's a left only lane and a shared through right, that's what's existing condition. >> Pool: I said left, but I meant right to go east. Yeah. >> So the proposal is to add a left turn lane so essentially it would be two northbound left turn lanes, a through-only lane, and a right-only lane. >> And the right-only lane is the one I was talking about and I misspoke and called it a left turn. >> So the right only lane, so if they're on the sidewalk, the users would cross as a pedestrian, cross to what we call like an island basically to separate the through and the right movements. And then cross again, cross 45th street to head north. Like I said, they can choose as a cyclist to enter the street. That's what we have right now essentially is the bike lane and south of 45th street they lose their exclusive lane in the street, share it with vehicles and then proceed north through the intersection. We did review for safety like Mr. Spillar said, we have concerns about the interaction if the bike lane were provided through the intersection because north of the intersection is kind of where the -- it goes down to the width -- I think the proposal is to move the curb a little bit along the east side north of the intersection to accommodate the receiving traffic. But that was all part of the review. We went back and forth several times with the applicant to come up with a design we thought was safe. >> Pool: And my last question on the bike lane. >> Tovo: Let me just confirm our plan for today. It was my -- through discussion with the mayor about how to handle this, it seemed like it was most useful to isolate one topic for today and just deal with transportation issues. [9:38:46 AM] And we did try to get that word out to our staff, but we do have staff here from parks department and housing who have asked whether or not we're going to address those pieces today. It would be my suggestion we kind of work through the transportation issues we have and decide today what we want to take up next week. Is that generally agreeable? We'll tackle these issues in pieces. >> Kitchen: Yes, I would prefer that. >> Tovo: I think that makes the best sense with a case like this. So just to be clear, to our staff who were in the back, I apologize that you didn't get the message that we were dealing just with transportation, but if you're from parks department or housing, we will see at least one group of you back next week. Councilmember. >> Garza: Just a clarification. Can you point us in the backup to a map of what you're talking about? >> Pool: I think there are some concepts. Staff, does anybody have those that you can share with us, just show the intersection maps. >> I do have a tia with me. >> Pool: I think that would be great. >> Tovo: Did you have a question too? Why don't you go ahead,. >> Garza:. >> Garza: I'll let you finish. >> Tovo: Councilmember pool, while they're trying to determine if they have a map, would you like to ask your next question? >> Pool: Sure, transportation demand management program. Mr. Spillar, is it the same team here for transportation management demand? Great. So we've been hearing some ability concerns and I'd kind of like to dig into those. >> Tovo: Great. And before you do, are there any other questions about bicycle lanes, about the shared use lanes, about the provisions for pedestrians? Before we move from that [9:40:46 AM] topic? Councilmember Gallo? >> Gallo: Would you help me. I think I remember as we're talking about the safety issues on 45th and particularly as you come through the grove and are heading north, I believe there's scheduled to be a pedestrian hybrid beacon at 45th. It's been such a long discussion. >> The developer has proposed a multi-use path that goes east. I'm having trouble with directions as well, councilmember. Going east in back of that first row of houses. At Jackson street -- with the intent to cross shoal creek proper at some point and hook up to shoal creek boulevard. But before you get to shoal creek at Jackson there's an opportunity for a connection directly from that path back to 45th street, safe crossing would be provided by a beacon, a pedestrian hybrid beacon, pedestrian and perhaps bicycle into the rest of the neighborhood that is north 45th street. So yes the plan is for a pedestrian hybrid beacon. We still have to go through the warrant process for that, but the developer has agreed to go with that. >> Gallo: And then I think as we talk about the safety getting people from the grove development north that there will be an option that's available to bypass the intersection of bull creek and 45th and come down a little bit further to the east and be able to cross with the pedestrian hybrid beacon at Jackson. >> It will be a safe producing we believe at 45th as well to an existing sidewalk that is north of 45th, but this would give you a more sheltered connection -- >> Gallo: From the traffic that's actually on 45th. I think that's an important issue as you look at the whole area that there is proposed an ability to actually have a crosswalk [9:42:47 AM] that stops traffic for the safety of getting both the pedestrians and bikes across 45th because 45th is not a safe place to cross. >> Tovo: I would like to talk about Jackson and it might make sense to talk about it before we move forward and the traffic management. Is this a helpful map to illustrate? >> We did just get a draft concept from the applicant. We can put that up if it helps visualize. >> Tovo: Sure. I think that would be useful. >> Pool: Let's make sure it's the right intersection because we've talked about two or three of them now. >> This is specific for 45th and bull creek. >> Pool: So this is not the 45th and Jackson or the bull creek and Jackson. >> No. >> Pool: As we're teeing this up I have two drawings, two concepts. One shows the bike lane on the sidewalk and the other one shows it on the street. Mr. Spillar, Mr. Ballard, do you want to talk us through this one? >> This is the concept for the -- I want to call it the sidewalk along bull creek road with the right turn separate from the through lane. This is kind of that shaded -- >> Tovo: I think this would be useful if you would demonstrate as you're talking. And I know councilmember Garza you said you had a question, so I'll recognize you for your question if you've had time. [9:44:50 AM] >> Okay. So here's the path coming up the sidewalk bike lane that goes around the houses on 45th street. So essentially if you were coming northbound, there would be a connection here for the two crosswalks to connect and then be able to cross 45th and then continue on bull creek road. And then there's a second concept, here's the bike lane, maintaining in the street, continues through, is adjacent to the through lane, comes through the intersection and continues on. The joint path here is shown. So here's another option for if the cyclist chooses to stay off the street, on the sidewalk, they can cross as another option. >> Tovo: Councilmember Garza. >> Garza: I'm just trying to understand what the conflict is between the two. So we're either talking bikes on the shared path or bikes on a road or there sounds like a proposal that you could do both. Those comfortable on the road stay on the road. Those more comfortable on the shared path will stay on it. That's the proposed concept right now? >> There are two options, yes. >> Garza: And 45th has never been -- there's not going to be any bikes on 45th. It's too dangerous. That's not even an issue. >> Right. The only other option would be to provide something off the street or reduce the number of lanes in an existing curb width to accommodate. >> Garza: And just to get clarification on your amendment, what is your amendment? [9:46:59 AM] >> Pool: So my amendment is looking at what happens north of that intersection because it hasn't been completely accommodated. There is -- the applicant is not doing anything north of the intersection. >> Garza: North of 45th? >> Pool: That's right. >> Garza: Do we have any policy that requires them to do something past? We do? >> Pool: I think with the pud the trade-off is they have entitlements and we have community benefit and one of the community benefits is the safety of people who are on bicycles going north of that intersection. >> Garza: So would your preference be that there continue to be a shared path north of 45th? >> Pool: I think it should align with what is below 45th street and I don't know exactly what that would look like, but currently it doesn't connect north of 45th street and it needs to. >> Garza: The shared path? >> Pool: Or on the street. >> So I would share with you north of 45th street we currently have a two-lane road, one lane in each direction is and parking on both sides. And so if an onstreet bicycle lane were to be proposed north of there, which I'm happy to have our active transportation take a look at, something would have to give in order to get the space necessary to add a striped bike lane. So north of 45th street, essentially it's shared use lanes, so it's still possible for bikes to go north of 45th street, but to put a protected bike lane in, something has to give. There's not enough real estate there. >> Garza: You would have to take away either the parking or get some kind of right-of-way access on the site? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Tovo: If I could, [9:49:00 AM] how -- seems like there is certainly some significant onstreet parking north of 45th on bull creek. What is your assessment? >> We've not done any assessment yet. That's certainly within our scope to be able to do that long-term, but we've not looked at that. But just knowing the width and yes, there is parking along that street going north. >> Tovo: It would be interesting to know what the impact would be of eliminating one of those -- parking along one of these sides. >> And what we would get is the parking on one side. >> Tovo: Any other questions about this particular issue or this amendment? So just for clarity, thank you, councilmember Garza, for asking that question about the amendment. So your amendment, councilmember pool, about the bike lane, would be specific to north of 45th. >> Pool: That's right. And that's in order to -- well, what I'm trying to do is restore the bike lanes to the way they are in the bicycle master plan, and currently this potentially moves them off on to a sidewalk and then it doesn't match up with what's north of 45th street and as far as the bicycle master plan there has to be congruency and connections. And with the number of new vehicle trips that will be on this road, the bikes need to have some protections. >> Tovo: Councilmember kitchen. Tipped to provide some -- >> Kitchen:, to provide some thinking because I know we're trying to have a conversation. I am a fan of these shared use paths because of the safety that they offer to people that -- because of the safety they offer people and the -- they really encourage bicycling for people that are concerned about being on the street. I don't know that it's an either/or. I just want to express that concern. We don't have the opportunity for those shared use paths in that many places. So I'd be reluctant to lose [9:51:01 AM] that, you know. Maybe it's a stripe and a shared use. I don't know. But that would be my thought on it. >> North of -- >> Tovo: Are your comments specific on north of 45 or just the other two options that are being considered? >> Kitchen: Maybe I'm reconsidering. There's no shared use path north of 45. >> Tovo: We have been talking about that so I want to be clear. You're weighing in on the two options I just saw. >> Kitchen: I guess my preference is a shared use path whatever it makes sense. That's what I'm expressing at the moment because it encourages bicyclists and what we have seen from our statistics is people will bicycle more if they feel safer and they feel safer if there's some barrier of some sort, whether it's a cycle track barrier or shared use path between them and the cars. So I'm just stating my preference for that. >> A portion of council is expressing a desire to look at the transition from south to north specifically with what happens north, and you've asked, mayor pro tem, to understand what the potential impacts of extending a bicycle facility to the north of 45th street, is that accurate? >> Tovo: Councilmember Houston? >> Houston: Thank you. And I just want to weigh in on that's an older neighborhood and this happened in my neighborhood where we eliminated parking on one side of the street with older neighbors and there's no pedestrian hybrid beacon proposed north of 45th street. So if you have to park on the opposite side and then try to get across the street that's a problem. It was for the folks in my neighborhood. So I want to make sure that the folks understand that it's how do you get from whatever side you're parked on with wherever you live with grocery are or if you're older and have disabilities. [9:53:02 AM] So I would not be doing away with getting rid of parking on both sides. >> Tovo: Councilmember Renteria. >> Renteria: Can you help me understand. Do y'all have a bike lane heading north and south anywhere along this area? On 45th street? >> On 45th or bull creek? Bull creek is north and south. >> Renteria: But how about shoal creek and -- >> Shoal creek has a continuous bike route. South of 45th street, bull creek has a current set of bike lanes. >> Renteria: Okay. Thank you. >> Tovo: Since we're talking about this intersection, I think it might make sense to address councilmember Gallo's proposed amendment with regard to the 45th and bull creek intersection. Councilmember Gallo, would you like to address your proposed amendment? And then we will take up any other small issues and then move on to the transportation demand management. >> Gallo: If you want to have another question, let me wade through all of this and I'll put it out. >> Tovo: I'll ask about Jackson. Can you help us understand what the most recent proposal is? Has there been any decision -- any proposals that are different from the one that I think we've all heard feedback about, which would require the taking out of several houses to extend the street? >> Let me start and you correct me. So for Jackson street, the developer has acquired two parcels that essentially line up -- allow a new street connection through those two properties and an alignment to -- what's the street to the north? Giaparo to the north. So it makes a fairly nice [9:55:03 AM] full four-way typical intersection. We would propose to restrict Jackson, however, to a right-in, right-out, to prevent left turns from 45th street that might be headed west to head south on to Jackson street, so that was one of the concerns. What Jackson does do is provide a direct connection from the multi-use path that is parallelling 45th to the street network and pedestrian network north of 45th street. Additionally the developer, I understand, has been talking to the adjacent property owners to those two properties that they've bought to see if they can improve their access to their property, perhaps second driveways off of Jackson street to provide back access to those properties adjacent to Jackson street. And the pedestrian hybrid beacon. >> Houston: Mr. Spillar, those of us who don't live in those districts and don't have a familiar reference point, can you put up the things you're talking about? >> I am chuckling, Kanye west, because this is hard for me to visualize. Which way is north, east, south too. >> I'm more familiar probably than some, but I'm not sure that everybody on TV is familiar with it. So helpful to have a [9:57:07 AM] diagram. So this schematic shows what Mr. Spillar was referencing. Here's 45th, a reference east-west, Jackson avenue extension. Here's the right-out, the right-in. And here it lines with the street opposite, giaparo trail. And part of this is another multi-use path connecting to 45th and a protected crossing across 45th street itself. >> And north of 45th street, those neighborhood streets, whether they have sidewalks or not, are fairly quiet. To they would lend themselves to pedestrian movement in the street. As well. >> Tovo: Councilmember Renteria. >> Renteria: If that street to the north, that one, does that exist right now? >> It does, yes. >> Renteria: What's the name of that street? >> Some people that say Gia -- chipparro. I should add -- currently existing along 45th there's sidewalk only along the northside, which is another reason we're looking for a connection. Across 45th to grade into the sidewalk system and currently along the south side of 45th there is no sidewalk. >> Gallo: And that is the side with the pedestrian hybrid beacon at that crosswalk. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Tovo: Councilmember pool. >> So help me understand the topography of the road there. It looks like that's a straight line street and I'm looking at this other diagram and there's a significant curb. Can you talk to me about site lines and people driving east on 45th street on the signal light at 45th street and the pedestrian hybrid [9:59:07 AM] beacon and how close that is to the proposed road that you're showing there where two houses used to be? How many feet is that? >> Basically between this and the -- >> Pool: No, from there west. From there to the intersection at 45th and bull creek road. >> Okay. And bull creek road -- the picture doesn't display the road conditions properly. There is a significant curve in the road there. And -- and it also -- also trends down to see -- fairly steep slope. And cars coming east out of that intersection, where the traffic light currently is, are coming around that bend and they're going, how much lead time will they have to see a pedestrian hybrid beacon that may either be flashing or solid red. How much time will they have to react and respond should other cars already be backed up there or someone pushing a stroller in the intersection? >> Uh-huh. So let me start to respond to that, you know, I -- I think we're most -- as residents of Austin, we're aware of the common design for pedestrian hybrid beacon where the installs are just over the lanes. But as you may know, as you move to the west where hills become real issues, topography becomes a major issue, you can put accessory beacons or accessory signals at higher elevations or -- or position it so that we can design around those curves and so forth. So again this pedestrian hybrid beacon has not been designed. I will my signal person here if we would -- >> Pool: I think that's probably true. You didn't answer yet my question. What's the distance between the intersection -- >> I was trying to -- [multiple voices] >> And the potential ph -- >> I was just provided -- I'm going to check myself. They are saying about 500 [10:01:08 AM] feet between Jackson avenue and the curb, which you are referencing. I should add staff has been out there and looked up the conditions. We haven't assigned a nobody to it, necessarily, but, you know, we kind of gave it a cut check -- >> Sure. Are there some standards and -- in your standards manual and so forth about distances and signalization and so forth? >> Jim Dale, assistant director for the transportation department. We like to separate the signals as far apart as possible. But what we use for our initial screening criteria, when we receive requests from citizens, we have about 150 requests right now for pbs is 300 feet. We want some distance, there's a number of places around town that have long distances between signals and we want to shorten those up and so if it's 300 feet close to a signal, we like -- that gives a lower ranking. 300 feet is really our criteria for screening, whether we look for a phb, in this with the 500 feet that the applicant has given us would satisfy that. >> Do we know for a fact that it's 500 feet or is that the in be that the applicant gave you, have you measured it? >> We do not, we would have to measure it. >> We will check that and provide that feedback. >> I think the other piece that's important here, too, what is the distance coming out of that curve? I'm concerned about sight lines and the change in the slope. >> Tovo: Thank you, staff, for following up on that. Just looking at one of the amendments that you proposed, councilmember pool related to 45th street, the 45th street properties. Your amendment would be to retain those as homes, pending the change in the trip count; is that the connection there? >> Pool: Yeah, that's exactly right. The homes that are there are modest homes. They don't cost as much as some -- some of it is because they are on west 45th street and it's -- 45th street is a fairly heavily and -- the speeds are high. Heavily traffic and the speeds are high. And my - - my amendments [10:03:08 AM] would lower the amount of commercial and office space and the interior of the site that we can reduce the vehicle trips and then do away with the need to have the extension, a new road, be put through. Put through the site. Which is the extension of 45th street. There's no street there currently. >> Okay. Any other questions about what we've just talked about? Councilmember Gallo are you ready to talk us through your amendments? >> Gallo: Yes, thank you, amendments 7 and 8 that deal with the intersection of bull creek and 45th. Both of these two amendments were the result of conversations with originally the neighborhood association, but I think it's probably universally desired that the improvements be done as the development is occurring and certainly not wait until the end of the development. To do those, you know, as you know in projects where the property owner contributes to a traffic mitigation fund, quite often the improvements are done after the development is complete or even many years after the development is complete because the total funding for the project doesn't occur. This is a situation and opportunity that we have to be able to make sure that the improvements to that intersection of bull creek and 45th are actually done prior to the impact of the additional growth that is occurring there. So both of those amendments address that. So the first one, which is seven, says prior to permitting of any portions of the development that exceed the phase 1 trip count of 2,000 daily vehicle trips, the property owner is required to complete the intersection improvements for the bull creek and 45th street intersection. So once again, basically, that's just -- just making sure that the intersections improvements will be done in a manner that is -- that is going to address the increased density of that area as the density is occurring and not wait until long after the project is [10:05:10 AM] complete. Amendment 8 is requiring the property owner to start the construction of the planned improvements for bull creek and 45th, the intersection no later than six months, after the city of Austin has approved the final plans for the intersection. So basically what those two amendments do is that they -- there's a timeline for beginning to start the improvements and there is a timeline for completing the improvements, also. So it's really tying down the developers doing the complete -- starting and doing the completion of the intersection improvements of 45th and bull creek. >> Tovo: Are there any issues, staff, from your perspective on putting forward those requirements? >> No. >> No. >> But those are not currently part of the proposal? They would have to be added at amendments? As amendments? >> You know, I think in our discussions we always contemplated that 45th street improvements would be constructed in total before they finished their 2,000 trip development level. So I think this ties it down. >> Tovo: But it's not currently in the proposal, it's not codified in any fashion in the proposal itself? >> I don't know how to answer that. What I would say is adding this additional language ties it down for sure. >> Tovo: Okay. Thank you. >> I mean this really clarifies what we're looking for rather than leave it up to interpretation. >> Tovo: Thank you. But it was part -- >> We had always envisioned the developer building this as part of their initial part, yes. >> Tovo: And they are in agreement, I assume? Or we'll hear from them if they're not. Okay. Any other questions about [multiple voices] This proposed amendments from councilmember Gallo? Okay. Trip count, it seems to me, really relates to uses on the site, which is a subject that I think is somewhat outside of our scope today. I would propose that we try [10:07:11 AM] to talk about uses maybe next week. So ... We have amendments from both councilmember Gallo and councilmember pool related to traffic, transportation demand management. And so I think we should go to that next. And then we'll follow that by talking about the local traffic mitigation fund amendments that councilmember Gallo has proposed. So, councilmember pool, would you like to talk about transportation demand management and we'll talk about -- we'll go back and forth between your amendments and those on councilmember Gallo's sheet? >> Pool: Sure, that sounds great. So I'm interesting in considering the transportation demand management to help us address some of the mobility concerns that we've been hearing about. I believe zap recommended it's tdm, I think there's some real merits to pursuing that strategy. But I also understand this would be the first time that we would be doing this on a project of this size. So ... We have some pretty big opportunities, but also some pretty big challenges. Can you -- can you help me get some sense of the details? >> Sure. So if I may, councilmember, let me just -- go ahead, I'm sorry. >> Pool: I saw in the council q&a on the grove that there could be a contract that would lay out expectations for performance accountability. And so, are yeah, talk about that. How do you envision structuring that? >> Sure. So I think we've received a number of questions from community members, what's this tdm plan that the developers, you know -- I'm treating that as the proposal, the initial proposal, so we still have not had a chance to meet with the developer and respond. We think that the tdm plan proposes some pretty proven tools, most of those tools from examples that we've seen on the west coast and so forth. But we contemplate the need for some way to -- to assure accountability. And so I think we've called [10:09:11 AM] it an accountability contract. Other states have state laws regarding transportation demand management for -- for developments over a certain size. Texas does not. We don't have a municipal ordinance that requires tdm, although we've been talking for a number of years about bringing something similar to that for any development. And so this really would allow us to create a contract and treat it just like a contract with the developer about accountability that would have -- trip characteristics and so, you know, just like Mueller has a maximum trip production level, we would contemplate something like that with the developer. What that maximum level is, we would contemplate a -- a measurement program so that we would measure how many trips, how many trips per capita are being created, et cetera. And then a plan for what happens if they exceed any given year or any -- any couple of years or whatever it ends up being negotiated, what measures they have to take to come back into compliance. Most successful tdm plans that I have seen in other regions, I used to do this kind of planning on the west coast, is that if a development exceeds some expectation, then you increase the amount of activities that occur. So you start with education, and programming and awareness, then you step up to maybe it's actually purchasing transit ticket or fares for properties. Then you move up to maybe excluding parking spaces for employees. Those are all the -- I mean, those are just ideas. But we still need to negotiate what that concept would be with the developer. So ... >> Pool: In the negotiation -- >> Tovo: Just one second. Did you have a question, councilmember Garza? >> It was more a general question for process, but I can wait. >> Tovo: That's okay. [10:11:13 AM] >> Garza: I'm trying to understand how we do this the most efficient way possible. If we're only talking about transportation today, then are we doing another work session where we talk about a whole other subject area -- >> Tovo: So you want to talk about general process. We are set for talking about I think each work session will have the grove. So, are yes, next week -- this will be on our work session as well. >> Garza: Okay. So I'm wondering if there's any desire for -- because hypothetically speaking, let's say councilmember pool puts forward an amendment, it passes, whatever that is, the developer says no, I'm not going to do that and I'm just wondering if we're proposing all of these things, that the applicant is not going to do, and so it seems to me like we are using a lot of time and I'm wondering if a better process would be for councilmember pool to sit down with the applicant and maybe councilmember Gallo, I don't know if you all are in the same quorum, maybe not, but -- but for councilmember pool to get a straight answer from the applicant, is this something that can be done or you can do before we go through this long process that -- that doesn't seem that it -- if the applicant is going to say no, and walk out and say, no, I'm not going to do that and I'll just take away my pud application, I'm just trying to be as efficient as possible. So is that an option? For you to sit down with the developer and ask -- >> Tovo: It's my understanding that there have been quite a few conversations and it's now kind of hit our council for some kind of decisions. And so -- [multiple voices] -- >> Garza: If that's where we are -- have you sat down with the applicant and has the applicant said no to what you are proposing? And I just want to know for my own understanding of where we are. >> Tovo: So the amendments that we just discussed? >> Garza: Yes, uh-huh. >> Pool: At this point, I think it's important for the public to hear the questions that we're asking and hear [10:13:13 AM] from staff. So that there's a general understanding of what can be expected to be done or not done on this planned use development. Part of the reason there are so many questions is because it hasn't been vetted in the public to get some strong answers and it's up to this council to -- to create the recipe for what that development would look like. It's up to us to take probably some pretty hard votes on what community benefits we want to see and then in -- and that's -- that's our job is to -- to make it real clear what it is that we expect as far as the affordable housing units, how much of that we want, what do we expect to see for the bike master plan integration, what's going to happen with our flood -- with flooding down the creek. And for the homes that are currently flooded as it is. And then the traffic management. There are a lot of folks who are looking for some -- some clear answers. And this is the first time that we've had an opportunity to dig into the traffic impact analysis. And so -- so I -- so I appreciate the opportunity to do it publicly. I think it's really important for the community to hear the answers to the -- they need to hear what questions are being asked. So, yes, I -- I think we should do this publicly. >> Gallo: May I answer, too? Councilmember Garza I think that's a good question. Because it's for councilmember pool's office and my office, we've been really involved with this discussion for quite a long time and the rest of the councilmembers are trying to figure it all out as we go through this. But to share with you I think that is a good question to understand where we are on the different amendments for -- as far as what is being agreed to or what can be agreed to by the developer or not, so that we know as we continue this discussion where -- where the missing pieces are, where the places are that we haven't been able to reach compromise. Basically what we did is we -- reached out to the [10:15:14 AM] neighborhood associations, ridgely, oakmont, 45 street residents. They pretty much all produced a list, including the [indiscernible], they all produced a list of concerns. Some mirrored almost exactly what dcrc's requests are, some were a bit more isolated and targeted specifically to their neighborhood. So we did see some differences. We went through those lists and then we sat down with the property owners to try to see what items on that list we could actually work with and reach an agreement with the property owners to achieve. So I think as we talk about the amendments, it would be helpful for all of the rest of the councilmembers to know which amendments that there actually have been agreement with the property owners on, which ones were still in conversations on and haven't reached agreement. I would say that the majority of the amendments that we have put forward have been amendments that the property owner has agreed to. But we can -- as we talk about each one, we can do, there's some minor ones I think as we get to the -- to the noise mitigation one is one that we're pushing for a neighborhood that, I don't know, that we've got a full buy-in yet on some reduced hours. But that's really how we've structured our conversation on this. And what our amendments look like. So I would say the majority of the amendments that we're proposing have been agreed to. But certainly as we talk about the amendments, that might be a good question to ask from -- from the property owners, whether they are agreeable to it. I think that then gives the council an idea of where the gaps are. >> Tovo: Councilmember kitchen? >> Kitchen: I was going to make a suggestion, I know that councilmember pool and councilmember Gallo have been working on this for quite a while. I appreciate what -- I don't know if it's appropriate, but maybe this becomes a dialogue where we hear from staff but also have the opportunity to ask the developer where they are. And I -- I say that not with -- please don't [10:17:16 AM] misinterpret that. That does not mean that I am only going to suggest things that the developer immediately says are okay. But at the same time, I do think that it's important to have a conversation, so -- because that may shape -- maybe we need to express our needs in a little different way and it also helps people understand what we're interested in. So I don't know if that's appropriate or not. It's just a thought. It's something that, you know, that we all have to do each individually if we don't, you know, do this as part of this. >> Tovo: Councilmember Garza, did you have another thought? >> Garza: I have nothing against us being as transparent and digging into the details. This is a level of minutiae that we have not done on the council for any pud before. Of so -- so I guess moving forward, if this is the precedent we're going to set, that we -- that we, you know, present 20 amendments to every pud, I'm concerned about that direction. And I think this is -- it's a big -- a big -- a big thing that we're trying to address here and -- and -- I'm just -- I just don't feel like it's being done in the most efficient way possible. If essentially what -- what people are proposing are stuff that the applicant is not going to agree to anyway, again, I'm not saying that -- then that would mean guide my vote either way. But I'm just trying to understand a process that's actually going to get us to where we should be -- we should be. But I'm willing to listen. [Laughter]. As long as I can. >> Tovo: As I see it, we had hundreds of people scheduled to talk to us. We haven't heard from all of them yet. But some of them have concerns that are being expressed via amendments. We will have to take votes on these amendments at some point. Have to understand those amendments and discuss them before we take an informed vote. And so -- so, you know, as I understand, the agreement we came to at council to postpone it and take it up at work session. I think a productive use for [10:19:16 AM] our time would be to work through these amendments, understand them, have some time to think about them. It is -- it is certainly detail. There's no doubt about that. And we can certainly move faster. As the council wills. But, you know, that's -- that's how I envision what we're doing here today and next week and then the Tuesday after that, working through as much as we can to understand both the concerns, but also the proposals that our colleagues have brought forward so that we can be efficient in our time on the 20th. >> Mayor pro tem -- >> Tovo: They are complicated. I have seen puds go through with very little conversation. I know as a neighborhood association president we spent, you know, a full year negotiating with the developers of the Hyatt and, you know, we -- the conversation at council was pretty lean -- was relatively abbreviated, but that was because we had, you know, almost weekly conversations in that previous year. So they are complicated. And -- that's just where we are on this one. >> Mayor pro tem, with regards to the tdm plan, again, the developer offered the tdm plan and we've had discussions with them that we think that it's a pretty good plan. But it's a starting point and they have agreed in principle to the idea of an accountability contract. This is new ground, so we're still inventing what that means and so -- so, again, I think that's what we will be discussing with -- with the developer over the next couple of weeks before the next council meeting. >> Tovo: Great. I know there are some amendments related to it, but it seems like since the staff haven't yet had a chance to really evaluate it, and provide their response, maybe we should fly through this one a little more quickly if that's the will of the council to do so, since you are not able at this point to really give us your evaluation of -- >> We would be happy to take those amendments as sort of course direction to talk to the developer about and then we can report back to you on -- on what we think the best plan might be. >> Tovo: Councilmember Gallo, would you like to take us through your [10:21:17 AM] amendments? >> Gallo: I would. I think it will be helpful. Let me put it on the overhead because I think it's easier. >> Garza: Is this on the tdm? >> Tovo: This is on the tdm. I think these are councilmember Gallo's amendments that are noted, let's see, on no. 9. They are on page 405 of the spreadsheet she just distributed. A. >> Okay, it's up on the screen so people watching from -- from home can take a look at it, also. First of all, I think the idea of the tympanic tdm, transportation demand management program, is really exciting and I think it's exciting that this particular project will be the first one in Austin to really work on it at this scale. I think it's just -- it's the direction we need to go. Very innovative, we see as we have done the research on it, we see other cities that have put it in place, I think it really addresses a lot of the transportation traffic congestion issues, particularly on these more central urban in fill developments. So to answer councilmember Garza's question, the amendment that's we have proposed have all been agreed to by the applicant on these. And what we did and the way ask from the bcrc and the ridgely neighborhood, the 45th street residents and put the language in that they had actually put as far as their requests for this case. And then on the right-hand side is the amendment that we're proposing that addresses that. I would point out that the bull creek road coalition ask was for a 15% reduction and we were to get the applicant to agree to bump that up to 20%. I think that's good. And then just a little bit [10:23:17 AM] more language in there that I think staff will look at and -- and address from the standpoint, but these are agreements already that the property owner is willing to do, to address the tdm and the concerns of the neighborhood. >> Kitchen: Do you have copies of that? Is it in the backup? >> Tovo: Message board. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> Gallo: We can get you copies. >> Kitchen: That's okay. >> Tovo: For those of you watching, it's on the council message board and available through a link, as I recall. Are there other questions about the transportation demand management? Yes? >> Just two questions. Knowing where you're at with this. I want to make sure that we are real clear on what the city's role it will be in monitoring it. Monitoring it, enforcement, needs to be with the city. Knots with -- not with the applicant. Then I want to know what happens when the applicant sells off portions of this site. Does the -- does this affect the terms of the tdm. Which is another reason why I want the city to have a role in the monitoring and enforcement so that we can continue to make sure that any promises that are made in these early stages or the site plan are continued years into the future. >> Yes, councilmember. If you would also give us, though, the flexibility, I would ask, to contemplate a third party that might be contracted with, maybe it's a -- maybe it's a -- a -- a commute reduction organization or something to monitor and report back to the city. We won't give up ownership of the -- of the responsibility of ownership to -- you know, to enforce and monitor. But it might be fruitful to contemplate a third party to assist us in terms of month to month, year to year. Monitoring. >> Pool: You may be right. You may be right. I would be happy to look at that. You can bring it back and we can look at it. I think the key, though, is that the neighbors who live there now and the ones who [10:25:17 AM] will live there, will have a lot invested in what happens there. If we are making some pretty intentional statements at this stage of the conversation and then 20 years from now when things are really happening on that site those get lost in the mix, then we will not have held up our ends of the bargain. I'm -- I want us to hold up our end of the bargain. I don't want any corners to be cut. I don't want there to be shortcuts. I want us to do this properly from the get to the go. >> I understand. >> Mr. Spiller, who would bear the cost of that ongoing monitoring? >> I would assume that would be some type of ongoing relationship with the developer, the property manager. That is required to do that. 7 of course, that's part -- of course, that's part of the discussion that needs to happen. >> Tovo: I think that would be important, whether it's requiring staff time or an outside third party -- -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices] >> Yes, mayor pro tem. I would also offer if a traffic management fund is developed, that might also be an appropriate source for ongoing funding. I don't know the answer yet. >> Tovo: Thanks. I think that would be a good item to hit before we conclude our discussion today would be to talk about the transportation fund. Councilmember kitchen? >> This is just a question about tdms. I'm looking at the components that relate to the trip generation, I believe. Is it appropriate in a tdm to talk about -- I don't know what the wording would be, but to take into account multi-modal kinds of support. >> Yes. >> Kitchen: Simply something to the effect if it's appropriate -- I don't know if it's appropriate for this or not. But cooperation with efforts for bus transit or something like that. Not requiring the -- not a requirement that a developer pay for things that are within the scope necessarily of the transit agency. But I'm certain there might be some -- there might be [10:27:18 AM] some circumstances where some cooperation might be appropriate. >> Absolutely. Transit, bicycle, pedestrian usage, electric, [indiscernible] Vehicles, all of those are viable elements as tools to consider. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> And, you know, there are places that have private subscription buses to provide collection distribution, there are -- there are, you know, just in terms of the design of the development, that, too, can help produce trips. The mixing, you know -- the mixture of -- of land uses and I mean below the land use that I think the city usually gets in, you know, to make sure there's a coffee shop, make sure there's a dry cleaner in the neighborhood that people can tend to walk to. Just as an example. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> So there's a lot of tools and we want the developer to have access to as many of those tools as possible, I think, as we go forward. >> Okay. >> It's focusing not just on trip making, but really -- really single occupant vehicle usage. How can we drive that down. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> Tovo: Councilmember Gallo? >> Gallo: Councilmember kitchen, that's a good question because the tdm is definitely geared towards multi-modal solutions, because I think those are the solutions that will help reduce the vehicle traffic and we have to look at that, use it on the capital metro -- you sit on the capital metro board, one of the discussions is reducing or eliminating the bus that comes down bull creek. As you have that discussion, you know, one of the things that we had talked about as part of the tdm plan is the ability for a property owner, management company to provide shuttle bus service that gets to where the bus stop is now going to be or will be in the future. So there's lots of conversations that are very creative, that are definitely geared toward multi-modal solutions, which I think is really important. >> Tovo: Further questions on this topic? >> One last one. [10:29:19 AM] >> Pool: One last question and then I will thank you guys for coming and helping us today. >> I have a question. >> Pool: Oh, you do. On the traffic demand management piece, [indiscernible] Is a short street, it makes a hard turn over to a side street. When we are looking at what happens as far as how the traffic will flow, how it's managed. I want to see how the neighborhood's north of -- neighborhoods north of 45th are affected. They are not part of the scope. I think that I have some of that in my package as well. Clearly the vehicles that are going to be attracted to this site will be moving all around and as you characterized, Chapparo is not very heavily trafficked street, that's correct. It's a -- it's a narrow street and it doesn't see a lot of traffic. But this could change. And so if you could please expand the review of the -- of the impacts up to shoalmont north of 45th street, that would be bull creek road over to the east through therapy and Chapparo, or chippero. >> Yes, councilmember, that's why we are proposing the ride in-right out design at Jackson is to prevent direct trips moving north there. Of course there could be left turners, but that exists today. >> Pool: I suspect that people will turn on to the side street in order to avoid the traffic light because the cars will be backed up. East of the traffic light. And then they will go through those interior streets over to bull creek road and then to Perry lane and then if they're going northbound on mopac, they will get on mopac at that point. >> Okay. >> Pool: Thank you. >> Tovo: Councilmember Casar? >> Casar: Before we get to your next topic, I was trying to hop in on the process issue. Because I was thinking about similar questions as councilmember Garza. [10:31:19 AM] I think that what would be helpful for me is because we aren't -- I think it's helpful for us to do this during work session, but of course we can't call up people from the audience, we don't have the applicant like our usual sort of vetting process of ideas. So I'm not going to ask people to argue against their own amendments, but if people could put their amendments in the context of the balance of the values that they're working through it may be helpful for all of us. For example, I'm just going to use Aaron's example. If we're talking about an additional bike line on the street which young I as a cyclist use those, some folks might say -- if somebody could say this may increase the level of service for bicycles and be helpful around driveways because those bicyclists would be better seen, but at the same time this may decrease the level of service for automobiles by about this much and that's just why I'm proposing this amendment because I think, a, on balance, is -- doesn't hurt B that much. If folks could help us through some of that, because we are calling people up to sort of vet items and get all of the arguments like we usually would in public setting -- in public -- the public comment periods or in public session, that would be helpful for me. Again, I'm not going to mandate or enforce to anybody hey argue against yourself, but just I think for many of us doing it in work session, it may be helpful to hear amendments in the context of the tradeoffs that we're all trying to make. And if folks can -- can sort of phrase the pros and cons of their own amendments and why they came out still being for it, that would be helpful for me and I think for others. >> Tovo: Great. As I understand it, the applicant with regard to this particular topic, the applicant has proposed the traffic demand management system, so is clearly in agreement. The staff are open to that. The only amendments we have are those that are specific to it are those from Gallo and sounds like those are in line with what the developer [10:33:20 AM] is thinking. Any other questions about tdms. >> Well, mayor pro tem to add on to that, I'm requesting a monitoring and enforcement piece attached to the tdm and go into perpetuity for at least as long as the development is under construction. So it's -- there are some pieces of it that haven't yet been inserted in that I would like to see in there. >> Tovo: Great, thank you. Those might be done then in the form of an amendment if it's not part of the formal proposal that comes forward to council. >> Right. One thing that I would say is -- is, yes, in perpetuity is one concept to have an ongoing tdm plan forever, if you would. The other idea is to try to agree on a set amount of years that that land use or development would be responsible for it. With the thought that at some point it just looks like the rest -- the neighborhood changes over time. And it's now become the Normal behavior as opposed to a -- to an induced behavior. Which is what we're trying to do with the tdm plan. So we'll come back with a recommendation related to that. >> Tovo: Okay. Thank you. I wanted to talk for a minute about the bridge, the pedestrian bridge. After the hearing, I believe it was after the hearing somebody forwarded us an email indicating that there was not yet approval from the state for that. Can you speak to that the pedestrian bridge and where the staff are in terms of -- inter-- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices] >> I think the state would be the best to answer that -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices] >> Tovo: Probably not. >> I think there was a reluctance to start a discussion about the easement until there was direction from council and know that we have funds to do something with. As I understand the bridge that the developer has agreed to put up a set amount of money up front but then be responsible for construction of that bridge, if it were to cost more. That's my understanding. But we've not -- my understanding is that we've not negotiated the easement [10:35:21 AM] with the Oklahoma state -- with the state because there's zoo many unknowns on our side to get them interested. >> Tovo: Okay. But that is a real estate question? >> I believe so. I think that's the reason that they will give you it's just not possible to really get the Oklahoma state to come to the -- get the state to come to the table yet. >> Tovo: The letter we received sounded like there's not any -- >> You would have to discuss that with them, I don't know the answer. >> Tovo: We can do that. Anything else related to this issue. >> Gallo: Related to that question, bedid have a meeting, six, seven, eight months ago, with real estate to talk about that concept of is that even a possibility just to kind of start that conversation. But that is -- as transportation just said, until there's actually something that we can move forward with, we're really kind of at a standstill. But there has been discussion ahead of time and pulling in some of our elected officials also that might help with that conversation. We're part -- they were part of that meeting. So there was an initial conversation. But we got to the point that we could only get to if we had an actual plan and actual funds to proceed forward. >> Tovo: I think probably it would make sense for me to submit a question to the q&a and get some information back. If it's part of the plan, I would like to know how realistic it is. Councilmember pool? >> Pool: I would just simply add on to what councilmember Gallo said. It is also something that could be the subject of some legislation during the session. If the legislature directed the state archives and library commission to provide the access on the southern end of this property, then that would pave the way for this to happen. So that is an efforts that the applicant certainly can enter into with the connections that the [10:37:21 AM] developer has with the legislature. And that's also something that we can support here -- here as part of our -- our agenda for legislative action. In the next session. And bill filing, I think, starts in about four weeks or so. Middle of November. >> Tovo: Okay. Looks to me that we have one more topic that falls within the general category of transportation and mobility. Councilmember Gallo that is your proposed amendments -- about the local traffic mitigation fund. If you would like to address it, I guess they are not proposed as amendments to this pud, they would be a separate action. >> Gallo: It would be a separate resolution brought forward. We are currently working on the draft. Basically the concept is as we look at large in-fill development projects as this and as we will have others, I think it is important for both the property owner and the city to take on the responsibility for the traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Atmosphere we talk about -- as we talk about, there's never enough transportation dollars to be able to address mitigation needs in those surrounding adjacent communities. So this is just an effort, starting with this particular property, to set up a traffic and I would say more mitigation, probably more of a traffic improvement fund that would be resourced by -- by a specific thing. We've talked and -- bull creek road coalition actually brought this forward as an ask and we kind of took that and continued on with the process. But there would need to be a funding source for it. Obviously as part of the development, as part of the pud, the property owner is contributed large number of dollars to traffic mitigation and improvements. A sense of there will be continued needs throughout [10:39:22 AM] the adjacent neighborhoods to help mitigate some of the traffic impacts. We really don't have a funding stream for that. This is beginning that conversation of how can we do that so that a neighborhood and neighborhoods have a predictable stream of money and the city has a predictable stream of money for a certain amount of time that as traffic issues develop in a neighborhood because of the density that is being proposed and being approved, that we work with. And it's -- it would be multi-modal, it would address the tdm plan. It would -- it would talk about even smaller -- it would talk about sidewalks, it would talk about bike paths, it would talk about speed bumps. But those particular issues that will pop up over the next 10 to 15 to 20 years with the surrounding neighborhoods. >> I have a question. >> Kitchen: So I think that that -- that that fits very well with our discussions that we'll be having -- not exactly the same thing, but related to the land development code, one of the items that we have on tomorrow's agenda related to some of the -- some of the recommendations that are in the prescription paper. But it also -- also things that I know our staff is working on. I am thinking there may be some connection between that and the work that's being done on the impact fees. That's not necessarily the same thing. But to me this might be a related kind of tool because the overarching policy that we're talking about is -- is how do we -- how do we account for and have funding for the impact of growth on - - on traffic. So my question to you would be do you see those related as all or am I just seeing -- are these just two different tools? >> I -- the lack of better language, I would tell you they're in the same genre, but maybe not the same type of tool. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> So about you think that they are both - - I think that they are both [10:41:22 AM] compatible tools that could be used together to manage long term the traffic impacts of a new development. >> Gallo: I think what we see, too, councilmember kitchen is this fund would be a fund that there would be a lot of neighborhood participation in. It's a source for like neighborhood partnering programs, but really where the city is working very specifically with the neighborhoods that are impacted by the additional traffic and actually has the resources and expertise to work with the neighborhoods to figure out solutions, but has the funding to implement those solutions. >> Councilmember, it's much like our parking benefit districts. Although the funding source is different, the neighborhood has a -- a role in proposing projects, as does the city have a role in bringing projects to that -- that group of organization to decide on -- on transportation related improvementsrerces that mig Beed. >> Mr. Spiller, how much is the developer currently committing? Is it 100,000 -- this sheet talks about 100,000. Is that the commitment to the local traffic mitigation fund? [Tovo] >> I don't know that, I'm sorry. >> Tovo: You had said a significant amount, councilmember Gallo. >> Gallo: There's two different pools of money. I think there is a developer's contribution into this fund which is different from the -- >> Tax. >> Gallo: Well, which is different from the developer's participation in the traffic improvement as we've been talking about this morning, the 45th street, the pedestrian bicycle lanes. Those are different funds, which are substantial with what the developer is willing to pay. I don't know, rob, if you have the numbers for that, but it's -- [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices] >> Tovo: When you said substantially, those were the investments that you were talking about. >> Gallo: That is substantial, but the property owner is actually willing to help seed fund, this traffic mitigation, traffic improvement fund, [10:43:23 AM] which we are talking about a separate resolution. That's the challenge for this fund is that we have to find a funding source for it. So we've talked about the ideas of it being from the increasing property taxes, but as we know on the council, we recently passed a resolution that said that the property taxes from this particular property are going to go to the affordable housing trust fund and so because of that situation already being put possibilities and I know Greg's office has been working a little bit with us to maybe move in the direction of sales tax. And alcohol tax. And so that that could be a -- that could be a source for this, that still leaves the property tax in place for the affordable housing trust fund, but -- but gives us something on a -- on a timeline basis on a restricted time basis to be able to gain those funds into this -- into this opportunity. >> Mr. Spiller? >> Councilmember, you asked what the contribution is towards transportation improvements. Based on the tia, it was just under $3 million that they were bringing to the table. We've been talking about some amendments where that might be increasing depending on what hams -- what happens, but that's out where it was. >> Tovo: Actually my question was about their contribution also to the transportation fund. 100,000 that is that the number [multiple voices] >> Seed money. >> That's what we agreed to. >> The 3 million, sorry the 3 million did that include the funding for the bridge, shoal creek, was that separate to that? >> I think that's independent. >> Gallo: That amount was? >> I believe about 750,000. >> Right. >> Gallo: Thank you. >> That's the initial estimate. >> Thank you. >> Tovo: Councilmember Gallo, what is your timing for bringing forward the proposed resolution? >> Gallo: My understanding is that we were working with legal on it. As we all know, our legal department has been -- has been stress and pulled in a bunch of different directions. [10:45:23 AM] So my understanding is that's where it is. We are looking for co-sponsors at this point. So our goal would be to bring it forward probably on the 13th, so not -- certainly not this meeting, but the next meeting. >> Tovo: Prior to the consideration? >> Gallo: I think so -- >> Tovo: We will have a fuller discussion when it comes forward. I guess at this point I am interested if there are traffic impacts I am interested by seeing those mitigated by the development and the developers themselves, it will be of concern, certainly, if we're diverting property tax dollars to that fund. And sales tax and alcohol tax is another way to cut that, but those are also funds that would typically accrue to our general fund to help serve the residents that would be living there. So it's not -- dissimilar for me from the conversation that we had with the affordable housing trust fund. >> Gallo: I think part of the goal in this, too, is to give us long-range opportunities with funding to address traffic situations that may not exist immediately when the developer is still involved with the property. But may show up 10 years from now, 15 years from now. So that's part of the -- that's part of the desire to have some type of fund so that there is funding sources available both for situations that are existing now, but also situations that occur 10 years from now. >> Councilmember Casar? >> Casar: I would say I had expressed I think at least once if not twice my concern with -- with directing the property tax revenue anywhere but the housing trust fund. I would signal that the -- that I also have serious concerns about diverting sales tax money. But this does seem to be a pretty extraordinary situation. If we can come up with certain criteria that establish what those extraordinary situations might be where that might be inappropriate -- an appropriate designation, I am open to thinking about that. That's what I'm thinking through. Because frankly if we can figure out a way to -- to [10:47:24 AM] make these sorts of developments work, inside the city where some of the infrastructure is older, then the potential benefit, for example, to the affordable housing trust funds is so great -- fund is so great that I maybe able to justify diverting some of those other funds. That's the way I'm thinking through it because I understand very well that sales tax money if it's diverted to this purpose, there are other very worthy purposes and people that having about waiting for that sales tax money to improve their longs for a really long time. So I would not want to -- to do this in a way that sets precedent, that this is something that we are regularly doing. I want to think through how to describe this sort of extraordinary circumstance of this particular development presents us. >> Tovo: Councilmember pool. >> Pool: Yeah. I think the point for me is that the development should pay for itself and the developer should pay for -- to mitigate whatever impacts will be brought to this site because of the development. The -- the bridge that we're talking about, the 750, that's not the entire cost for putting that bridge across shoal creek, right? Do you all have that number? >> I do not have that number. My understanding is that's the initial estimate by the developer. But that they've agreed to -- if -- within reason if it goes over that to -- to construct the bridge. >> Pool: The number that I heard was I think about 2 or $3 million, that may be high. I don't know. But the site is -- is pretty fragile. And the place I think the environmental officer was very clear when he talked about where the footings for the bridge would be put in. Also talked about this, that they would not be in the shoal creek, for example. So the -- the cost to construct the bridge is - - the point that I want to make, it's more than $750,000. I want to make clear, too, that my intention is that the bridge be constructed [10:49:25 AM] and the developer pay for that bridge in its entirety. That's not something that the city should pick up. That goes to connectivity for the site and it would be a pedestrian and bicycle bridge. It's no the a vehicle bridge. >> Correct. I don't know -- when I say correct, I don't know about the financial cost that you quoted. I will leave that to -- to the environmental group to -- >> From different neighborhoods about traffic mitigation, traffic calming, opportunities that they would like to see become part of this. As I understand it, are there any other -- any other off-site traffic mitigation plans that we haven't yet discussed here today? That the developer is considering one, I think they have asked oak Mont asked for some traffic calming measures, are any of those contemplated between the proposal that the developers have brought forward, off-site? Mitigation other than what we have talked about at the intersections. >> Right, we haven't seen a specific plan from the applicant saying this is where we had in mind for traffic calming devices, but that's certainly something that staff can look at. We can take a look at the neighborhood and those streets that we feel the traffic would be most likely diverted to, if you will. Either through congestion or trips that the -- at the grove -- that the grove would generate. >> Tovo: If you would, I think that we've all heard questions, emails, concerns from neighbors. So if you would provide us with some more specific information on this. Okay. Anything else related to transportation and mobility? What makes sense as topics for next week's work session? It looks like we have two more work sessions where we're, as I mentioned, scheduled to talk about the grove. I think if there's a will among the council to stop the work session discussions, we certainly could talk about that as well. Though it would be good to have a few more colleagues involved in that conversation. If we were to proceed with this plan, it seems to me that we have housing will be a large and lengthy [10:51:26 AM] discussion,, and I would -- I would propose that we take that up next week. Several of the amendments on either of the two amendment sheets that we have gotten already talk about the uses, the use mix on site. There are some amendments that I see related to noise, to flooding and to parkland. Are there other major areas of discussion? Thank you all. Are there any other major areas of discussion that we haven't mentioned? >> I would say as part of the parkland discussion, if you are going to set that for a work session, you could also pull in watershed and environmental? I think those -- those three types would fit well together. Topics would fit well together. >> Tovo: I agree, I think it would make sense to take those up as well. Does it make sense to take up housing, the use mix, relates to traffic count amendments rather next week, housing uses and let's throw in noise and then possibly the following week parkland, watershed and flooding and of course the mayor really sets the work session agenda, so this is all subject to -- to his agreement. >> Sounds good. And -- you know, back to the earlier question, I think we can move through this as quickly or as slowly as we want. And certainly we can have a conversation about whether this plan ought to be abandoned August together. But I think -- altogether, I think we need to do that with our full council because that is kind of the direction we provided to the community last Thursday. >> Gallo: I want to go back to councilmember Garza's suggestion, comment. I think it's really helpful for the councilmembers to understand what are the pieces that were pretty much all in agreement on, between the applicant and the city. And which ones are we not. Because then that -- that helps us as we talk about it in work session to know maybe those are the ones that we need to spend more time on, a little bit more [10:53:28 AM] in-depth in. I think that was a really good suggestion. As we go through them, we kind of isolate those out with that conversation. >> Tovo: Agreed. Anything else about the process? Councilmember Garza? Any other thoughts about -- about a more efficient process? >> I guess that I would just go with the will of the council with -- if everybody wants to -- to dig into the details like this, I think -- I mean I understand, I have read the message board and I understand where everybody is, I just don't know at what point are we going to start -- start voting on -- on all of these different amendments. And it -- how that -- how that is all going to come together because -- because there's a lot of opinions on this. And there's a lot of moving parts. And -- and -- and -- anyway. I'm curious to see how it's all going to come together. But I'll just listen and watch and ask questions when I have them. >> Tovo: Again, my hope is that I'm moving, having -- in having these work session discussions, that we can kind of move through the amendments quickly, are potentially on the 20th. Okay. So with -- back to our agenda, I think councilmember Gallo you had pulled the champions tract for discussion here today. I think that's our only item pulled for discussion. After that we'll just have a brief conversation about Thursday's process and then wrap up. >> Gallo: Thank you. I just wanted to indicate to the council that -- that -- that we will -- I will probably -- I will be requesting a postponement on this item to -- to -- to our next zoning meeting, which would be the 10th of November. We met with -- with about -- we have been meeting with about eight different neighborhood associations that are impacted by this zoning case. And we had a meeting yesterday with staff and there are still some missing -- some really important missing pieces. This is a really complicated zoning case because it's been part of a past lawsuit. [10:55:30 AM] It was a large tract of property that was broken up. There was a lawsuit. There was a settlement -- there's a settlement. There's a part of the zoning case would be doing some amendments to the -- to the settlement. And we just -- there's legal documents that are really important to be part of this discussion that are still not complete yet. And the neighborhood has expressed an interest, yesterday, in being able to be able to review those documents and also be able to have the time to go back to their neighborhoods to talk to their neighborhoods about it. There's been a lot of environmental questions and concerns and -- and chuck and the environmental department have been really good about addressing those as they come up, but I think there's still some outstanding ones that the neighborhoods want to have some discussion. So we just, their request when we met yesterday, was that they felt like all of the information was not complete yet to them and they really wanted more time to be able to see those legal documents once they were complete and once they had all of the amendments in them and then to also be able to go back to have the time to go back to their neighborhoods and make sure that there weren't any other concerns. So the neighborhoods requested that we postpone and that we would postpone to the next zoning, which would be November the 10th. >> Tovo: Which were the neighborhoods making the request of postponement? >> Gallo: Glenlake neighborhood association, long canyon -- long canyon was not there yesterday, shepherd mountain, west minster Glen, two coves neighborhood, courtyard ... I think that was the group that was there yesterday. We've had -- there's three other neighborhood associations that were not able to attend yesterday. >> Tovo: Okay. Thanks. Can we hear from staff about their timing on the development documents? And how quickly they'll be done. I'm asking this in part because -- >> Green shores. >> Tovo: I know that right now we have -- we typically defer a postponement of -- we typically defer a zoning to another zoning meeting. I think we should really have a discussion about that, frankly. Zoning meetings generally. But I want to just hear from staff what their timeline [10:57:30 AM] looks like to see if we could consider bringing that back to an earlier meeting. We have three, I think, between here and November 10th. So if -- we certainly do bring back zoning cases on non-zoning meetings, this might be a good opportunity because this case has gone on for so very long. >> Sure, Alicia [indiscernible] With the law department. I think we do have some outstanding issues just related to the environmental pieces and we are kind of reworking a few things. But I think we could certainly come back sooner if that were the will of the council. >> Tovo: I think what's being contemplated is almost a month-long postponement. We have two meetings. I was wrong about the three. But we have a meeting on the 13th or the 20th of October, that might be possibilities. Mr. Lesniak. >> I think we can have the documents, you know, ready fairly quickly. The neighborhood has asked since we are still making some tweaks, for some more time to -- to review those. You know, I think we're going to have all of the issues resolved and nailed down in -- in pretty short order. It's just really a matter of time of -- to provide the neighborhood enough time to look at those. >> Tovo: What does pretty short order translate into? >> This week. >> Tovo: So I think that's the question that I would pose to the neighbors, whether we really need to push it back three meetings or whether we could bring it back next week or the week after. >> Gallo: So the discussion with the neighbors, the impression that I got from the neighbors is that they wanted -- the process has been that when we have said -- this is certainly not to say anything staff -- staff has worked very hard on this. But staff has been very busy working on other projects, too. Of when we said we would bring this back in a certain period of time, it's been delayed not [10:59:31 AM] intentionally, but because staff has been very, very busy. And when the neighborhoods think that something is being brought back in a week or the following week, it's another week and so they are window of opportunity shorts owns and I think that's been the process in the last handful of months in this process. They would like it to be set in a time that gives staff ample opportunity to give things back with a cushion to get things back and we have the cushion built in. And they asked yesterday that we allow them the time to be able to review the documents. There is an attorney. There's one neighborhood who two of the members have hired an attorney. That's part of the conversation now. So there's that time constraint as far as being able to visit with the attorney about it. And getting out to the rest of the neighborhood and being able to present this. So the ability for a neighborhood to call a meeting, to get together and talk about it, if that's something they want to do. I just think that they requested we give them enough time in a postponement to allow staff to give them what needs to come back and there still may be tweaks to come back after that happens and give them time to analyze it. So the the month is what they felt like was a reasonable amount of time to do that. And I'm just representing what the neighbors have asked for. >> Tovo: Is this a discussion postponement for Thursday? Is applicant in agreement to push it back a month? >> Gallo: It's my understanding, yes. >> Tovo: And generally I think we should have a conversation and I'm not sure when to do that. Probably we can't have it today, but I may add it to next week's work session agenda if one of my colleagues will sponsor it about zoning meetings generally. I think we should think about zoning meetings and whether that still makes sense. I think it tends to push our meetings quite late because they all get slated for six P.M. And after. I know we're not posted to have that conversation so I will end there and just say if one of y'all would help me put it on the agenda for next work session I think we can have a brief discussion about it and should -- councilmember pool? >> Pool: I would just [11:01:31 AM] say that on the 20th we had agreed to take up the grove and some of those conversations, the same issues that you're bringing up we were specifically going to avoid having another big zoning case on that same day. >> Tovo: Okay. Any other council items council wants to discuss for Thursday? If not, could we just have a very brief discussion? Does anybody intend to post anything for a time certain for Thursday? Councilmember pool. >> Kitchen: I think that's number 19 related to the arts contract. But I'll try to figure that out by tomorrow to let people know. >> Tovo: So possibly 19. Any other items? Being considered for time certains? Councilmember pool. >> Pool: I do have a question on item 19. Can I ask it? >> Tovo: Okay. >> Pool: I've gotten some emails that -- about the resolution. My understanding was the resolution was specific to one cultural contract, not all of them. >> Kitchen: Yeah, the email that you received is old. In terms of the understanding that they're concerned about. >> Pool: Okay. >> Kitchen: And I'll work to post. There will be different language proposed and I'll work to post that. >> Kitchen: That's great. That was my understanding as well. Thank you. >> Tovo: Any other items that people intend at this point you know you're going to pull on Thursday? Councilmember Zimmerman? Anyone? Maybe it will be a really fast meeting on Thursday. Okay. And we have no executive session scheduled for today so we stand [11:03:33 AM] adjourned at 11:03.