C-01 Anna Pitalla Correspondence.pdf — original pdf

Backup

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Anna Pittala Rivera, Andrew Fwd: Request for Omitted Information ASMP Street Network Amendments Spreadsheet by District Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:57:04 PM image006.png image010.png image009.png image005.png image008.png image003.png image004.png image007.png image001.png *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Good afternoon Mr. Rivera, I have signed up to speak today via teleconference in opposition of Item C-01 Austin Strategic Mobility Plan Update. I am attaching an email correspondence between myself and Mr. Cole Kitten at the ATD. Please share this with the Commissioners. I will be referring to this during my comments today and I would like them to have a copy of the back and forth emails between myself and Mr. Kitten. Please let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Austin Strategic Mobility Plan <ASMP@austintexas.gov> Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:16 PM Subject: RE: Request for Omitted Information ASMP Street Network Amendments Spreadsheet by District To: Anna Pittala <annapittala@gmail.com>, Austin Strategic Mobility Plan <ASMP@austintexas.gov> CC: SouthwoodOfficers@gmail.com <SouthwoodOfficers@gmail.com> Thanks for your patience, as we dealt with a smaller staff last week and the response to your questions below took a considerable amount of time to write. It is appreciated. We’ve provided a response to your requests in line below: 1. The request for the spreadsheet to be divided by District has not been addressed or provided by the ASMP Team. Mr. Kitten, please provide the spreadsheet broken down Sincerely, Anna Pittala 512-443-5874 Hi Anna, by District as multiple citizens have requested. a. We believe that using the published Street Network Amendments map, as well as the printable Map and Table PDFs that you requested, provides a complete view of all the proposed amendments. Council District boundaries are political boundaries and streets cross districts or make up the boundary itself, making the reporting disjointed and more difficult to navigate for the community. For example, S First Street crosses four different districts and you would have to refer to four different tables to see all of the information. The interactive map, map series and table organized by street name are much better tools to use than a geographic distinction like a Council District because we have found that the general community does not know which Council District they are in, but they do know their street name. Our recommendation is to look up this information by street name. 2. I would therefore request that all blank spots be filled in the spreadsheet and map description pop up boxes including missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, Existing Mean ROW BLANK and any and every other BLANK regardless of the street Level. The homeowners that live on the streets listed in the spreadsheet deserve to be fully informed and should not have any omission of information. a. There are tens of thousands of Level 1 Streets in Austin, and the information you’re requesting isn’t information that the City already has. It would take a considerable amount of time and money to evaluate every street to fill in every blank. The process used to fill the existing conditions (i.e., Existing Cross Section and Existing Mean ROW) in the original table was developed over multiple years using GIS data, aerial imagery, and manual review, which only focused on streets that were considered Level 2 or greater, and was only used to identify proposed improvements. All Level 1 streets are local streets and should have two travel lanes and on-street parking (2U-OP). However, sometimes these streets are too narrow and parking has been restricted and sometimes there are other considerations for why we can’t make an assumption that all Level 1 Streets are 2U-OP, so the Existing Cross Section field is left blank unless it was evaluated. If no improvements are proposed in the Improvement field, a homeowner could expect the Future Cross Section to be just as it is today when they go outside. The only change to the configuration of the street may be if there is a proposed bicycle facility, which can be found in the Recommended Bicycle Facility field. The Future Cross Section would then be updated after that project development process because the ASMP does not predetermine whether parking would be removed to add a bicycle facility or if other configuration changes are made. All Level 1 streets have a Proposed Future Cross Section field that is filled out as 2U- OP and is used as the starting cross section in an ideal condition. These “Proposed” fields are what homeowners should be focusing on when considering the ASMP amendments because they are describing the future condition (such as how many lanes are there, is there parking, is there a bicycle facility? Etc.). 3. Please follow up on the request for existing ROW on Level 1 streets. The Level 1 streets should be included in the evaluation if any changes are proposed for the streets. The citizens living on those streets need to be able to measure their properties and mark where the ROWs land in order to plan appropriately for coming sidewalks and other changes. No one wants to build a fence, install a garden, or plant a tree in an area that will be developed. The homeowners need to know if the ROWs are 50 or 60 feet. How will homeowners know if 60 feet is still applicable in a developed area? a. The most accurate source of information for a homeowner to find the Existing ROW is the property survey that was conducted when they purchased the home. Estimates in the Street Network done through the prior process used GIS data from the Appraisal District and may not be spatially accurate, which is why some streets have blank Existing ROW. The adopted ASMP identified the required ROW for Level 1 Streets in established neighborhoods as 50 feet. In new developments (greenfield developments) 60 feet of ROW was identified to be dedicated for a Level 1 Street. These dimensions were based on the Draft Austin Street Design Guide, the precursor to the updated Transportation Criteria Manual. The updated TCM changes the required width of a Level 1 Street to 58 or 64 feet, which is based on the adjacent building height. Under the proposed ASMP amendments, a Level 1 Street shows a Proposed Required ROW of 58 or 64 feet, 58 feet for streets with buildings 3 stories or less or 64 feet for streets with buildings 4 stories or more. The required width is determined during the development review process or based on the existing building height. 4. Does the ROW change to 50 feet automatically when a house is built? a. No, the ROW exists as shown in the survey and wouldn’t change when a house is 5. Is the ROW 50 feet for all existing Level 1 streets no matter the current width of the built. street? a. The ROW exists as shown in the survey and may range between 50 feet up to 64 feet based on the old street design standards for local streets in the old Transportation Criteria Manual. 6. Is the ROW measured evenly from the center of an existing streets? a. In most cases the ROW is measured from the center of the existing street, unless a new centerline has been identified. This would be determined at the time of land development. 7. Why are the existing ROWs not included in the maps and spreadsheet for Level 1 streets that are being upgraded to Level 2? These homeowners need to be able to see how much property they will lose if they develop their properties. a. As mentioned previously, Level 1 streets were not evaluated and it would take a considerable amount of time and money to evaluate every street to fill in the Existing ROW field. This information isn’t considered required but was helpful in the development of the original Street Network in order to identify future improvements. Any Level 1 Street that is proposed to be reclassified to a Level 2 Street either already has a bicycle facility or is recommended to have one and is adjacent to non-Single-Family zoning. Every homeowner should refer to the survey conducted when they purchased the property to have an accurate understanding of their property line and the right of way. If a property owner decides to develop their property they would need to conduct the due diligence to see how much right of way may be required to be dedicated per the Land Development Code. There are many factors that determine the amount of property that would be dedicated as right of way based on the intensity of the proposed use and the value of the property, so the exact amount would only be determined during the development review process. If a community member has questions about their property boundaries and the development process, they can consult the Property Profile tool (where you can identify easement lines, lot lines, etc.) or reach out to the Development Services Department. 8. I have a question about Vinson and the drawing of the property lines you drew in red and the yellow Railroad line. The red property line West of the Railroad doesn’t seem applicable to this conversation because the main Railroad line will not be moving and those house are in the opposite side of the Railroad line. Can you provide the numbers on the combined Vinson and Railroad ROW, so the homeowners know where the current ROW lands on their properties? If the improvements will be made within the existing ROW, the homeowners should have the right to know where that line is on their properties? a. As mentioned above, the most accurate source of information for a homeowner to find the existing ROW is the property survey that was conducted when they purchased the home. They can also consult the Property Profile tool to see the Appraisal District’s GIS data for a rough estimate. The answer to this FAQ may also help people understand that their property line ends and the right of way begins in what many consider their yard, but it’s actually public property. Based on the old standards this is often 10 feet behind the face of the curb, but homeowners should always consult their property survey to know for sure. 9. Mr. Kitten has repeated stated that the new land dedication for ROW will not apply to existing single family neighborhoods. At the Pedestrian Advisory Council meeting on Monday, March 7, 2022 during the Q&A Mr. Kitten when discussing ROW land dedication he said in existing neighborhoods if homeowners subdivide your property that the new land dedication for ROW will apply. Where in the written ASMP plan or maps is this stated? a. The ASMP states “The Street Network Table and Map includes roads that are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Austin and is used to identify right of way dedication requirements needed to accommodate future roadway conditions (referred to as Dedication of Right of Way in the Land Development Code).” The Land Development Code reference is below. i. Division 2. - Reservation and Dedication of Right-of-way. § 25-6-51 - RESERVATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. (A)The City may, as a condition to approval of a site plan or subdivision, require the reservation of right-of-way that is reasonably likely to be acquired for public use consistent with this article. To be subject to reservation, land must be located along a roadway designated in: (1)the Transportation Plan; (2)an approved collector plan; or (3)an established capital improvement project located in the planning jurisdiction of the City. (B)The extent and location of the right-of-way reserved under Subsection (A) must conform to the Transportation Plan, approved collector plan, or capital improvement project. 10. I other words, will homeowners with large lots be penalized and lose part of their property if they sell part of their lot to a new owner to build a home despite the new home being built in an existing single family neighborhood? a. It is highly unlikely that a Single-Family lot subdividing into two lots for one additional home to be built would result in additional ROW being dedicated due to the value of the land not being Roughly Proportionate to the impact to the transportation system that one additional home would cause (per the Land Development Code). This is determined during the development review process. 11. Will adding an Additional Dwelling Unit to a single family lot trigger the new ROW dedication? Will adding an Additional Dwelling Unit to a single family corner lot trigger the new ROW dedication? a. No, ADU’s and other home improvements going through the Residential Review process for a building permit are not subject to ROW dedication requirements. 12. Please answer this scenario. A street in an existing single family neighborhood has already been developed on one side of the street. If the ASMP Amendments passes and a homeowner subdivides and builds a single family home on the new lot, will the entire increase to the ROW land dedication for the proposed required ROW be taken from the new home’s lot? Will the original house have the ROW land dedication taken too? If the ROW land dedication is not taken from every house on the street, how will the bike lanes, sidewalks, barriers, green zones, buffers, etc. be built? Will it be in tiny sections? a. ROW dedication through the land development process takes many decades to realize. The purpose of the ASMP is to preserve the ability over a long period of time to make improvements to the roadway or to require them to be made at the time of private land development. Most physical changes to a street would not be made piecemeal or in tiny sections, but sometimes a new development could provide inset parking where there was no on-street parking before, or provide enough space for a row of trees along the sidewalk. In your scenario, an additional single-family home would not result in additional right of way being dedicated, so the right of way would remain the same. If higher intensity development occurs (more than a duplex), right of way may be dedicated and maybe some incremental improvements could be made, but they’d have to fit within the overall context of the street. This is all determined during the development review process. Thank you for taking the time to read through this information. Please let us know if you’d like to discuss further. Cole Kitten Division Manager Systems Development Division Austin Transportation Department (o) 512-974-6442  From: Anna Pittala <annapittala@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 3:30 PM To: Austin Strategic Mobility Plan <ASMP@austintexas.gov> Cc: Anguiano, Dora <Dora.Anguiano@austintexas.gov>; Barragan, Yuri <Yuri.Barragan@austintexas.gov>; District 2 <District2@austintexas.gov>; Fuentes, Vanessa <Vanessa.Fuentes@austintexas.gov>; Kitchen, Ann <Ann.Kitchen@austintexas.gov>; Renteria, Sabino <Sabino.Renteria@austintexas.gov>; SouthwoodOfficers@gmail.com Subject: Re: Request for Omitted Information ASMP Street Network Amendments Spreadsheet by District *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Council Member Ann Kitchen, Council Member Vanessa Fuentes, Council Member Pio Renteria, Constituent Liaisons - Ms. Anguiano, Ms. Barragan, Ms. Ramirez, ASMP Team - Mr. Cole Kitten, Mr. Dan Brooks, and Ms. Kelsey Vizzard, Mr. Kitten thank you for your response. Unfortunately, it has resulted in more questions. Council Members thank you in advance for your help. I appreciate any assistance you can provide in obtaining this additional information. The request for the spreadsheet to be divided by District has not been addressed or provided by the ASMP Team. Mr. Kitten, please provide the spreadsheet broken down by District as multiple citizens have requested. It was my mistake not realizing that so many more streets are included in the ASMP Amendments that are labeled Level 1. I would therefore request that all blank spots be filled in the spreadsheet and map description pop up boxes including missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, Existing Mean ROW BLANK and any and every other BLANK regardless of the street Level. The homeowners that live on the streets listed in the spreadsheet deserve to be fully informed and should not have any omission of information. Please follow up on the request for existing ROW on Level 1 streets. The Level 1 streets should be included in the evaluation if any changes are proposed for the streets. The citizens living on those streets need to be able to measure their properties and mark where the ROWs land in order to plan appropriately for coming sidewalks and other changes. No one wants to build a fence, install a garden, or plant a tree in an area that will be developed. The homeowners need to know if the ROWs are 50 or 60 feet. How will homeowners know if 60 feet is still applicable in a developed area? Does the ROW change to 50 feet automatically when a house is built? Is the ROW 50 feet for all existing Level 1 streets no matter the current width of the street? Is the ROW measured evenly from the center of an existing streets? Why are the existing ROWs not included in the maps and spreadsheet for Level 1 streets that are being upgraded to Level 2? These homeowners need to be able to see how much property they will lose if they develop their properties. I have a question about Vinson and the drawing of the property lines you drew in red and the yellow Railroad line. The red property line West of the Railroad doesn’t seem applicable to this conversation because the main Railroad line will not be moving and those house are in the opposite side of the Railroad line. Can you provide the numbers on the combined Vinson and Railroad ROW, so the homeowners know where the current ROW lands on their properties? If the improvements will be made within the existing ROW, the homeowners should have the right to know where that line is on their properties? Mr. Kitten has repeated stated that the new land dedication for ROW will not apply to existing single family neighborhoods. At the Pedestrian Advisory Council meeting on Monday, March 7, 2022 during the Q&A Mr. Kitten when discussing ROW land dedication he said in existing neighborhoods if homeowners subdivide your property that the new land dedication for ROW will apply. Where in the written ASMP plan or maps is this stated? I other words, will homeowners with large lots be penalized and lose part of their property if they sell part of their lot to a new owner to build a home despite the new home being built in an existing single family neighborhood? Will adding an Additional Dwelling Unit to a single family lot trigger the new ROW dedication? Will adding an Additional Dwelling Unit to a single family corner lot trigger the new ROW dedication? Please answer this scenario. A street in an existing single family neighborhood has already been developed on one side of the street. If the ASMP Amendments passes and a homeowner subdivides and builds a single family home on the new lot, will the entire increase to the ROW land dedication for the proposed required ROW be taken from the new home’s lot? Will the original house have the ROW land dedication taken too? If the ROW land dedication is not taken from every house on the street, how will the bike lanes, sidewalks, barriers, green zones, buffers, etc. be built? Will it be in tiny sections? I appreciate your offer to meet and go over this information, but I prefer to have these questions and answers in writing, so I may share them with my neighbors. Thank you, Anna Pittala On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:46 PM Austin Strategic Mobility Plan <ASMP@austintexas.gov> wrote: Thank you for your feedback. I assure you that nothing has been omitted and nothing has been made blank. The currently adopted Level 1 Streets were always blank, per the paragraph found in the adopted Street Network Table here, “Level 1 streets (local streets) with improvements identified are included in the Street Network Table. Level 1 streets without improvements identified were not evaluated for right of way constraints and are all required to be 50 feet in constrained conditions and 60 feet in greenfield developments.”[emphasis added] Additionally, the roadways referenced as missing in your email are shown below [highlights added]  The adopted Level 2 Street referenced in your email below also did not have an existing ROW calculated based on the unique configuration of the right of way. Vinson Dr shares right of way with the adjacent railroad right of way, so the GIS calculation for existing ROW was not included in the adopted Street Network. [railroad highlighted and existing property lines shown in red] We appreciate your participation and welcome your feedback. We hope the above information clarifies your concerns and if there is indeed an error in the GIS we would appreciate you pointing that out. We could also set up a time to go through this information together. Just let us know what works best for you. Thank you,  Cole Kitten Division Manager Systems Development Division Austin Transportation Department (o) 512-974-6442 From: Anna Pittala <annapittala@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 5:36 PM To: Austin Strategic Mobility Plan <ASMP@austintexas.gov>; Anguiano, Dora <Dora.Anguiano@austintexas.gov>; District 2 <District2@austintexas.gov>; Renteria, Sabino <Sabino.Renteria@austintexas.gov>; Barragan, Yuri <Yuri.Barragan@austintexas.gov>; Kitchen, Ann <Ann.Kitchen@austintexas.gov>; Fuentes, Vanessa <Vanessa.Fuentes@austintexas.gov> Cc: SouthwoodOfficers@gmail.com Subject: Request for Omitted Information ASMP Street Network Amendments Spreadsheet by District *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Council Member Ann Kitchen, Council Member Vanessa Fuentes, Council Member Pio Renteria, Constituent Liaisons - Ms. Anguiano, Ms. Barragan, Ms. Ramirez, ASMP Team - Mr. Cole Kitten, Mr. Dan Brooks, and Ms. Kelsey Vizzard, As the Council Members are aware, Southwood is a special neighborhood that is represented by three City Council Members. Our neighborhood is situated at the crossroads of three district. That is why I am sending this email to three Council Members seeking assistance. Thank you Council Member Fuentes in assisting with the previous request to obtain the attached spreadsheet. Unfortunately, the spreadsheet is incomplete and some important information has been omitted. There is some Southwood Neighborhood information not included and conflicting in the ASMP spreadsheet which was provided by the ASMP Team/Transportation Department. I have included screenshots and highlighted the blank columns. Here is a list of the missing information that I have found to date: *Banister Lane (Arden Dr. To Green Forest Dr.) on page 64 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Banister Lane (Philco Dr. to Arden Dr.) on page 64 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Banister Lane (Redd St. to Richmond Ave.) on page 64 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Banister Lane (Richmond Ave. to Philco Dr.) on page 64 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Redd Street (Banister Lane to Hank Ave.) on page 840 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Redd Street (Hank Ave. to Jinx Ave.) on page 840 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Redd Street (Jinx Ave. to Mount Vernon Dr.) on page 840 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Redd Street (Mount Vernon Dr. to End) on page 840 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Vinson Drive (Philco Dr. to Lennox Dr.) on page 1084 Existing Mean ROWs are listed as ZERO, but proposal states improvements will be made within the existing ROW which are conflicting. *Vinson Drive (Orland Blvd. to Lennox Dr.) on page 1084 Existing Mean ROWs are listed as ZERO, but proposal states improvements will be made within the existing ROW which are conflicting. *Vinson Drive (Aberdeen Dr. to Orland Blvd.) on page 1084 Existing Mean ROWs are listed as ZERO, but proposal states improvements will be made within the existing ROW which are conflicting. *W. St. Elmo Road (Mount Vernon Dr. to Vinson Dr.) on page 1146 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, and Existing Mean ROW BLANK. There are the two streets in the Southwood Neighborhood that have proposed changes per the spreadsheet, but are not included in the ASMP Amendments Map and they are also missing some information. Here is that list: *Emerald Forest Circle on page 383 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, Existing Mean ROW BLANK. *Emerald Forest Cove on page 383 is missing Existing Cross Section BLANK, Future Cross Section BLANK, Roadway Description BLANK, Existing Mean ROW BLANK. I ran across two streets by accident in the spreadsheet that were not included in the ASMP Amendments Map. What other streets in the Southwood Neighborhood are included in the spreadsheet for proposed changes, but not included in the ASMP Amendments Map. What other streets in Austin have proposed changes in the spreadsheet, but are not included in the ASMP Amendments Map? This has been very intensive research which has required hours going through the map, cross referencing the spreadsheet, and making a list of the missing information. I have concern that other neighborhoods and citizens of Austin are doing this kind of cross referencing. What other information is missing? I have only cross referenced the streets highlighted for change in Southwood on the ASMP Amendments Map. After my accidental discovery of two more streets, I feel I have no choice, but to commit to hours more work to check to see what other streets have been added via the spreadsheet. I hope you will please assist me in obtaining the missing information above. I will be in touch if I find any additional omissions. Thank you, Anna Pittala -- -- -- Stay safe & informed, Anna Pittala Southwood Neighborhood Association President ANC Co-Secretary Tellington TTouch Practitioner for Companion Animals Travis County Voter Registrar Independent Ordained Minister for All Nondenominational Marriages Band Liaison Nextdoor Welcome Team Member CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. Stay safe & informed, Anna Pittala Southwood Neighborhood Association President ANC Co-Secretary Tellington TTouch Practitioner for Companion Animals Travis County Voter Registrar Independent Ordained Minister for All Nondenominational Marriages Band Liaison Nextdoor Welcome Team Member CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. Stay safe & informed, Anna Pittala Southwood Neighborhood Association President ANC Co-Secretary Tellington TTouch Practitioner for Companion Animals Travis County Voter Registrar Independent Ordained Minister for All Nondenominational Marriages Band Liaison Nextdoor Welcome Team Member CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.