EMLK Contact team meeting - May 21st, 2018

This is the agenda for our 21st meeting. - there are some changes based on contact team member requests.

1. Morris Williams - this will have 3 sections (30 minutes) (Susan Tingley). We will vote on all 3 sections (resolution will be uploaded) (link)

2. A support letter for Red-bluff ( Ali Ronder)) (20 mins) Resolution/Presentation from Ali and Pete (I will upload the resolution once I get it - have not received it yet)

3. A transportation blueprint for EMLK (at least start the process) (Susan) We will vote on Susan's proposal - this is the resolution (20 min with presentation) 
 • Agree on workshop date to identify transportation details using the FLUM

4. Breaking up of the contact team into smaller groups as has been desired by MLK neighborhood association. (20 min)

Pinaki Ghosh

EMLK Contact Team Meeting on April 23rd , 2018

1. Community Involvement for local AISD Schools - Anne Teish
1. How to involve community in our schools?
2. Is there any way to integrate Mueller Elementary school with ours
3. IDEA school and how to understand the consequences - social, transportation, local.
4. Future of Sims and Norman? What are the options - how we can contribute.
2. ASMP Follow Up from Transportation Planning in East MLK / Springdale-Pecan Springs / Hog Pen December Meeting - this work was primarily pushed by Susan and Ali. We are getting the results of their effort
1. Presentation from City of Austin
2. EMLK Hike and Bike Trail and how it incorporates in ASMP
3. Bond Money for EMLK Hike and Bike Projects - UTC recommendation 
3. Status of Red-Bluff (transfer of land, master plan) - How can we move forward and next steps. Ali
4. Karisha 2nd Annual Earth (Volunteer) Day! April 28th (FLIER) - Amina/Ali
1. Karisha is in the corner of 51st and Springdale. It will provide holistic healthcare of our citizens.
5. Rezoning for 5521 Springdale Road - PSSNA Representative
1. This is about the rezoning of a piece of land which can currently accommodate businesses/stores into
6. Avert flooding hazard to Pecan Springs/Springdale Neighborhood: 4800 Springdale Road, 78723 - Bill Stout

Updates on Redbluff

Attendance
Ali Ronder
Pete Rivera
Andre Ewing
Chris Hitchings
Pinaki Ghosh
Mitcheli Wright (Landscape Architect)

Facts
1. One year after passing of the city ordinance the red-bluff land has not been transferred to PARD.
2. PARD would not take any action unless land has been transferred to them
3. PARD needs a master plan to act on the land.
4. City has the capacity to allocate small amounts like $30K to $50K for master plan
5. LaLoma trail is deeply tied to Red-Bluff project
6. UTC has urged the city to allocate Bond Money for entire EMLK hike and Bike Trail and Laloma trail is part of it
7. MAster Planners can be hired from outside (like Mitchell Wright who attended) to do the plan.
8. We can amend the city resolution to add the master planning fee
9. National Parks Foundation is willing to help along with other organizations that Ali is working with

Ali's addition

Andre Ewing is going to do some research and get back to me with order of operations and next required steps.  

Chris Hutchins is going to contact representatives at Cap Metro, Urban Trails and District 3 (among others) and get back to us

I will hold off on applying for Austin Community Foundation to be a Fiscal Sponsor until I hear back from Andre.  

Mitch has offered to share a budget template to me so that I can complete this application when given the green light from Andre Ewing (ie this has been determined to be a necessary step).  

We will meet with Justin Bates of the National Parks Service on Friday 13th.

Music in EMLK Parks

We have 4 fantastic parks/nature reserves in EMLK area - we would like to explore some options to have music festival in our parks but in a low key laid back way like Austin use to be

Some conditions

1. Musicians will  be local (in east side we have lot of musicians - this will be their venue)

2. Musicians will get paid and we will collect that money somehow (don't know how)

3. Locals will walk or bike to the park so we get to know more people (that's how communities are built)

4. The entire families can come to the event (they will 2 or 3 or 4 hours)
 ​

I will request Maria to advice us with the permits etc that may be needed.

EMLK contact teams and NAs will help but there has to be a seperate body to manage this (may be there is one already in some other capacity)

Rodeo Austin is doing a tremendous job in bringing musicians to east side​ - we can take advantage of that and do something in small scale - something which is relaxed and low key. We can start something in very small scale from this year itself

thanks

Pinaki

2018 bond money for EMLK hike and bike trail

Hello Everybody,

Ali and I recently spoke at the Urban Transportation Commission. We asked for 5.5 Million dollar for EMLK Hike and Bike Trail. UTC recommended funding for the EMLK Hike and Bike Trail through 2018 bond though they did not mention any amount. This is what we asked for

1. The La Loma Trail - $2 million
2. Hike and bike trail through Morris Williams Golf Course - $1 million
3. Little Walnut Creek Nature Reserve - $ 2 million
4. Connectivity to Springdale Park - $500,000

This is what Austin Monitor reported

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2018/03/utc-calls-council-fund-east-side-urban-trails/#.WqaZJo0DtOR.email

I think this is a pocket change compared to what we pay in taxes and compared to what we really need (considering we do not have hospital , grocery, pharmacy).

This is as far as we can take it as a contact team - the council members have to do their jobs and get this funding so please make your voice heard before the election.

Pinaki Ghosh

Watershed inputs for codenext from meeting on Feb 19th , 2018

We had an excellent meeting on the implications of run-off from codenext vs. current situation. Currently our run-off mitigation measures in existing code are negligible and I believe this is where code-next offers us the more value (we will get density we like it or not). We will see engineered solution of run-offs which will help flood mitigation.  (instead of just calling code-next bad let's read what it can do for us better - the car you drive today is a million times better than the one your grandfather drove - so there is value to engineering)

all item in red have links

here are few details from Matt Hollon's presentation

here is a summary of all drainage and environmental components of CodeNEXT (denoting those new to Draft 3). The engineering certification IS new to and included in Draft 3! And here is the FULL TEXT of all env. and drainage code sections. Go to 23-10E-3030 Engineer’s Certification Required for Certain Alterations and Improvements for the new provision for single-family, duplex, and 3-6 unit “missing middle” (<=45% impervious cover, etc.) projects built with Building Permits (p. 10 of this code text document).

23-10E-3030 Engineer’s Certification Required for Certain Alterations and Improvements

(A)   The director may not accept any plan or specification for a proposed alteration or improvement of a bed or bank of a waterway unless the plan or specification is accompanied by a certificate bearing the seal of an engineer certifying that:

(1)    The hydraulic and structural design is adequate; and

(2)    The proposed alteration or improvement complies with the ordinances of this City,the Drainage Criteria Manual, and the laws of this state.

(B)   Subsection (A) does not prohibit the director from accepting a plan or specification for a minor alteration or improvement that, in the judgment of the director, does not require certification by an engineer.

the LOCAL FLOOD modeling recently (PowerPoint here from this past Wednesday’s Env. Commission meeting; see slides 19-26).

Here are few very important links from Mr. Ruven Brooks who is also a wizard with GIS to get maps and data from city GIS

http://www.austintexas.gov/floodpro/  Floodpro shows flood plains throughout the City.  I'm always amazed at the number of structures that are actually within flood plains.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/permit/public-search-other?reset=true If you enter a street name in upper case and select a street type from the pulldown, this site will give you all of the building permits open along that street.

https://austin.civicinsight.com/  This is a newer site.   Click on Show Options to choose between Code Enforcement and Building Permits.  Click on the Austin dropdown to zoom in on a council district.   Click on the Load More button to see all of the hits; there can be thousands. Click on the red dots to see information about the particular case.

Come join us to discuss CodeNEXT proposals and implications for impervious cover and drainage (Feb 19th)

Come join us to discuss CodeNEXT proposals and implications for impervious cover and drainage. CodeNEXT is the City of Austin’s proposed overhaul of the Land Development Code. 

Agenda items include:

Analysis of Proposed Impervious Cover Entitlements for CodeNEXT (Matt Hollon, City of Austin’s Watershed Protection Department)

(link here to a short report)

 We know that these issues are of interest to a wider audience. People of other Austin neighborhoods are welcome and encouraged to join the discussion. A CodeNEXT representative will be in attendance to answer any technical CodeNEXT questions. 

The meeting is 7pm – 8:30 on Feb 19th, 2018 in the St. James Episcopal Church at 1941 Webberville Rd 78721

road and parking at Little Walnut Creek Nature reserve (Rangoon Road)

Hello Everybody,

I went to take a walk at the Little Walnut Creek Nature Reserve. I discovered that there is now a complete road between 183 and 51st street  through the park which is being used by the contractors for construction. (this area has multiple easements). It is also known as Rangoon road and is Public ROW

As you may know PSSNA is working very hard to develop a master plan for the park. I am requesting all parties (mentioned below) to sign a MOU on the future state of the road and parking. This will facilitate the master plan. 

1.PARD

2.PWD

3.CTRMA

4.EMLK Contact Team

5.PSSNA

6.Watershed

(there may be more groups)

Tracy, Margaret and Geno,

I need help from all three of you to bring this MOU. We must have a plan instead of just "hope" and that plan is to be documented in a MOU . CTRMA has clearly mentioned that they will follow city instructions for the final state. We need to define that final state through a MOU.

thanks

Pinaki

Springdale and MLK crossing (along with Heflin lane)

Hello Everybody,

Thank you all for the excellent presentations - based on the facts mentioned by CTRMA it seems Loyola Lane will be closed for a long time and MLK crossing is the intended crossing for everybody to use as an alternative. This will increase the traffic in MLK dramatically. The most hard-hit crossing will be MLK-Springdale. (Cars will come on Springdale from Loyola and 51st considering 51st street will be closed at 183 to go northbound). Here are few suggestions

1. Relocate the bus-stops which are currently at crossing of Springdale and MLK - on Springdale between 12th street and MLK #300 has 4 bus-stops on each side which is very strange. The corner bus-stop creates more problem because not only it occupies the lane on a green signal (also the right lane where you can only turn right on a green light) but also stops cycles from passing. 

2. We may think of having 2 stops in between 12th and MLK (walking 100 meter extra does not melt a us)

3. The unique challenge created by adding Heflin lane to a high-way intersection probably reduces the throughput efficiency by 50% for that crossing. We are asking local residents to comment on an optimization problem which is rather difficult. (do we ask local citizens for advice if we have a brain surgery?).  When Loyola lane is closed we should think about rerouting Heflin lane traffic through neighborhood.  there is no harm in trying this for a month a see the results. (but transportation engineers can comment on this)

4. The county building already has a entrance from Springdale so that should not be an issue. (again if people have walk extra 50 ft that should not be show stopper for broader optimization)

5. If we do not mitigate this issue - the entire springdale will be clogged when Loyola is closed and streets like Pecan Springs (which are local peaceful neighborhoods will become major feeders). We also have to remember that Springdale is a cycling corridor and with increased traffic we also put the cyclists at risk because the lanes are not protected. 

thanks

Pinaki

(chairman EMLK Contact team)

MLS at Travis County Exposition Center

Hello CM Kitchen and CM Houston,

We from East Austin want MLS (Soccer Stadium) to come to Travis County Exposition Center. We already have Rodeo Austin doing tremendous work to give visibility to this area so along with it MLS will be an economic engine for this area. 

Many soccer fans who will come from Houston, San Antonio or Dallas will either use I 130 or & 71 or 290 to come to the city. If we have the MLS at Travis County Exposition Center then they do not have to come inside the city to clog our already clogged streets. Mueller entertainment district also provides venues for entertainment. There is enough space in 969 area to build other entertainment facilities. 

I believe Travis County Exposition Center is not high on the list for the MLS team but please know that a professional soccer field needs 2 or 3 practice field. The notion that all fans will walk or come in bicycle in laughable. Given enough economic incentive teams will come to Travis County Exposition center. It also means Rodeo Austin, is a big part of east side's cultural identity, will have a partner. 

City provides large incentives to SXSW and ACL but the benefits are mostly in west side. We need some economic boosters in east side so MLS would be perfect for that.

We would prefer an ordinance which all 3 council members (CM Renteria and CM Garza along with CM Houston) also signs and requests Travis County Exposition Center to be the preferred venue. We need it badly.

thanks

Pinaki Ghosh

Oppose Plan Amendment Zoning Case: C14-20170097

                                                                                    January 23, 2017

To

City Mayor

City of Austin Council

Zoning and Planning Commission

Subject:  Oppose Plan Amendment Zoning Case: C14-20170097

File Number: NPA-2017-0015.03

Project Name: Jackie Robinson Residential

Dear Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, COA Employees,

We request that you turn down the amendment to the Neighborhood Plan and Zoning Change request for the above.  An NTA (Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis) was done for the site and shows that Delano St traffic would be over an acceptable level with the additional traffic added by this development if it is built to the maximum standards allowable. The study shows 1406 trips per day now.  With the development complete using the zoning standards allowed, the estimated number of trips are 1,919.  The maximum acceptable number of trips per day is 1800.

We understand that an additional NTA was done wherein the study used the development specifications as proposed by the developer’s agent, Jim Wittliff.  If these conditions are met, we understand that the traffic analysis shows that the traffic will not be at an unacceptable level.  However, the study does not take into account that 13 additional duplexes are under construction in the neighborhood right now, and the folks moving into these dwellings will be using Delano St (and its extension Ft Branch Blvd) for all their driving.  Adding 26 additional dwellings to the neighborhood means an additional 169 to 247 trips per day.  We can see that as those new homes are occupied, Delano St. will be close to unacceptable levels; and that with the development of the subject property as 62 condos, the traffic will definitely be over acceptable levels.  This is not even considering the lots now for sale or available for constructing homes.

About 30 or more neighbors within 500 feet of the project are requesting that the zoning and NP not be changed.  They site traffic and affordability as their reasons.  One neighbor explained to me that his mirror on his parked truck had been clipped twice in the last 2 months, each time requiring repairs. 

As suggested as a compromise by Planning Commissioner Trinity White, we were interested in  lowering the number of units in this development.  However, we were told by Jim Wittliff that the project would not go forward using that reduced number. 

Please see the chart prepared by traffic analyst Mehrnaz Mehraein from the Development Services Department, and also see the list of current construction or soon to be available dwelling units that will be using Delano St. at the end of this letter.

If a compromise cannot be worked out, we request that the Planning Commission and City Council turn down the request for the change and allow the zoning and Neighborhood Plan to remain the same.

Explanation of details regarding traffic issues on Delano St.:  We are concerned about the pressure to continue development above the current zoning and neighborhood plan without the proper infrastructure.  The infrastructure we are discussing is the street and road system. The traffic study done shows unusually high traffic counts for Delano St. of 1409 trips per day, a surprisingly high number of trips considering the street itself.  Analysis of the neighborhood reveals that the reason for this is that almost all traffic in the area, including The City of Austin Maintenance facility traffic, is funneled through Delano St.  That is because the Hudson St / Delano St route is the only convenient route through the area.  A look at a map shows why this is.  Please refer to the slide show.

Delano St is functioning as an arterial street, but is designed as a residential collector street, which is why it carries traffic beyond what it would normally be expected to carry.  Delano St. is 30 feet wide with cars parked on the street night and day. 

The neighborhood needs additional streets to carry the load of traffic. Streets that are shown on the FLUM do not exist and are not even secured rights-of-way. To provide that street infrastructure to develop this area would involve purchasing property or possibly using eminent domain.  Since that is an iffy prospect, we must not add further density until this issue is addressed.   

We are gratified that pedestrian safety needs in this high-traffic neighborhood are now being addressed using Capital Improvement Funds.  This is a very positive step, although it does not address the actual traffic issues.  We understand the developer is offering to build additional sidewalks. Although valuable, we believe it would be better not to bring traffic over acceptable levels.  

Lacking a plan to address the traffic over-capacity issue in the neighborhood, this development would be a detriment to the following East MLK Combined Neighborhood Plan Goals:

# 4  Promote the development and enhancement of the neighborhood’s major corridors.

# 7  Create a transportation network that allows all residents to travel safely throughout the neighborhood by improving safety on major arterials and neighborhood streets.

However, we believe either building the development with the lower number of units (40); or building homes using the current zoning would be in alignment with the following East MLK Combined Neighborhood Plan Goals:

# 2  Promote a mix of land uses that respect and enhance the existing neighborhood and address compatibility between residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

# 9  Improve bicycle and pedestrian traffic safety on neighborhood streets.

# 11  Protect and enhance the neighborhood … by reducing … dumping in this neighborhood.

# 12  Improve the quality, safety, and cleanliness of area creeks, and reduce the impact of flooding in the neighborhood.

We would like to present our additional concerns about this development as further reasons for not allowing this zoning and Land Use change. 

Illegal Fill:   There are multiple piles of illegal fill material on the property.  Some appear to be 30 feet or so in height.  We understand that the developer has an option to purchase the property from the seller, who was responsible for the putting the fill there.  These fill piles require expensive mitigation.  It is possible that lesser density development is not financially viable.  The burden of this problem should not be borne by the neighborhood, but by those responsible.  We would like to mention that multiple piles of illegal fill are on additional property tracts in the neighborhood, all created and owned by the owner of this property.  These piles were being added to as recently as 2016.  

Infrastructure in the Hog Pen realities and FLUM conclusions:  The Hog Pen area has some very serious infrastructure shortcomings.  There are residents without water and sewer facilities living on Hudson St. right now.  There are multiple streets without storm gutters.  The topography in the area is dramatically hilly.  The Neighborhood Plan and FLUM says:   “Because of the rural nature and limited infrastructure in the Hog Pen area, development is not suitable.”  (paraphrased)  Overdevelopment is not advisable.

Incompatible appearance:  The zoning and density asked for would allow 3 story condominiums in an area of infill that is surrounded by single family homes, most of which are quite small one-stories. We are concerned that the 3 story buildings would dwarf the single family homes and create an incompatible disparity in height and scale of buildings in the neighborhood.

This development will probably not meet the City’s desire for “missing middle” housing:  It seems likely to us that the condos that would be built would be very expensive.  Because of the illegal fill, the homes will sit very high on the landscape and will command a view of downtown Austin.  Homes with views can command a very high retail price.  Our understanding of the “missing middle” are homes that are moderate in price.  Condos are usually moderate, but these will probably not be moderately priced.  

In Conclusion:  We acknowledge that the developer’s agent has made some effort to work with us.  The high traffic count already existing on Delano St. is the result of several forces, including the hilly topography, the past agricultural use, flawed street design concepts in the 1980’s, and neglect by the City of Austin to create the needed streets.  These are not the fault of the developer.  On the other hand, there is existing zoning and Land Use Plans that could be used to build homes on this property.  These homes could be the “missing middle housing” desired by progressive city planners.ese THese

Please do not approve this zoning and NP change.

If the Planning Commission and City Council approve this zoning and plan change against our recommendation, then we ask that the developer follow through on a conditional overlay that would include the following items AND contribute $40,000 toward a project to be decided upon by the Hog Pen Neighborhood Association and the East MLK Contact Team.  The project selected would either be the sidewalks as originally required by the city or a project as designated in the Capital Improvement Project Requests.  A project that springs to mind is a needed bridge over Fort Branch Creek to connect our neighborhood to Springdale Park.

-       Three detention ponds with 110% of existing flood water retention

-       Save 90% of trees 10” or over in diameter 

Future requests:  In addition to our recommendation for the development being considered today, we would like to express our strong concern for the future in our area and ask officials for awareness of traffic issues as a whole in the neighborhood.  Considering the compact development encouraged by Codenext, considering future zoning change requests in the pipeline (The Aviary and Interlocal), considering the recent $15 million sale of a property in the neighborhood, and considering the rapid dense development happening in our area already; we must all be aware that infrastructure needs must be met before and during development.  We are asking the City to enact an ordinance that would require some additional street right-of-way acquisition and construction as shown on the present FLUM (or equivalent transportation corridors) to alleviate the over-capacity traffic pressure on one narrow residential street that serves the entire area.  We ask that this ordinance require future zoning change and NP change requests in this area to contribute to the needed street infrastructure.

We also ask that future zoning and NP change requests have traffic studies done that assess Delano St. as a whole to be used.  In other words, measuring traffic on Delano at its outflow area (close to Webberville Rd.), not near the traffic origination.   

 

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, 

Susan Tingley and for the:

East MLK Combined Contact Team

and the Hog Pen Neighborhood Association

susantinglee@gmail.com

AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOLUME

Using the same ITE code 210, and the same trip assignment percentages, the average daily traffic volume of each proposed intensity is as the following:

Intensity	Total Traffic (Vehicle per day)
48 DU	1,799
43 DU	1,765
36 DU	1,709

Prepared by Mehrnaz Mehraein of the Development Services Department

Construction in the neighborhood right now.

Current construction of single family duplexes that must use Delano St (and it’s extension, Fort Branch Blvd.) as the only ingress and outgress.  These homes were not occupied at the time of the traffic study, but will be adding to the overall traffic load soon.  Each address represents 2 dwellings, as each are duplexes.  This represents 26 additional families with that many additional trips per day.  Using the above figures to interpolate, that would mean an additional 169 trips per day.  

1220 Delano St.

1102 Delano St.

1116 Eleanor St.

1120 Eleanor St.

1142 Eleanor St.

1218 Eleanor St.

1307 Fort Branch Blvd.

1305 Fort Branch Blvd.

1309 Fort Branch Blvd.

1311 Fort Branch Blvd.

1313 Fort Branch Blvd.

1416 Fort Branch Blvd.

1418 Fort Branch Blvd.

Numerous vacant lots are available in the neighborhood that will probably be built out in the future.  Although we did not consider these future traffic possibilities in our calculations at this time, we must be aware that development in the area will be continuing:

1214 Delano St.

5501 Harold Ct.

1124 Eleanor St.

1128 Eleanor St.

1138 Eleanor St.

1224 Eleanor St.

1412 Fort Branch Blvd.

1414 Fort Branch Blvd.