Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, January 4, 2024 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager Stephen Bailey, Transportation & Public Works Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney Mike Wharton, Sustainability Office Courtney Davis, Senior Attorney Doug Hansford, Building Permits & Inspection Stephanie Green, Sustainability Office Brad Griffin, Planning Rani Katreeb, Transportation & Public Works Sarah George, Recorder Tim Griffeth, Transportation & Public Works Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the December 7, 2023 minutes. Commissioner Houle seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: There was none. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Review and update Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Assistant Manager Jones summarized the past meeting discussion on this topic. Staff shared the revised Residential Traffic Management Program (RTMP), formerly named Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The Committee discussed comments and questions regarding the proposed policy. Commissioner Thornton suggested modifying “vehicles” in Section 3(a)(i) to be “motor vehicles”, and she recommended it be listed prior to bicycles. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Wright recommended replacing the word “facilities” with “infrastructure” in Section 3(a)(ii). The Committee agreed. Commissioner Houle inquired about whether the word “should” or “may” be replaced with “shall”. Deputy Chief Attorney Hines advised that it would be up to the intent of the Committee. If they would like it to be very clear that this is a must, then she suggested changing it to “shall”. If the Committee feels like there may be some sort of flexibility that they would like to account for, then they could leave it written as “should”. She also noted that this is fundamentally a policy document, not an ordinance, so it is not incredibly important whether the word “must” or “shall” is used. The word “should”, however, can be interpreted differently, so if the Committee wants to be certain it always happens, she suggested changing it. Commissioner Houle inquired about the Committee’s thoughts on changing all references to “will” or “must” to “shall” throughout the document, changing references to “could” to “may”, and leaving all references to  “should” as is. Commissioner Myers suggested the Committee let the Attorney’s Office determine when those changes might be needed. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Myers inquired about what is meant by the language in Section 3(e). Stephen Bailey explained that the roadways would have to both be maintained by ACCGov and be a Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) classified local road. He noted the language should say “and is a GDOT classified local road”. Commissioner Myers agreed adding the word “is” would assist with clarification. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Myers requested clarification on what is meant by “cut-through traffic – 20% minimum” under the special note of section 5. Stephen Bailey explained that it is referring to the number of motor vehicles that travel on the road; if 20% or more of those motor vehicles do not live on that street and are cutting through, then this would indicate an opportunity to be evaluated with traffic engineering judgment. Commissioner Culpepper inquired about how staff determined if the drivers of the motor vehicles lived on the street. Tim Griffeth explained that there are books that are devoted to this, Trip Generation Manuals, which informs staff on how many trips they can expect to be generated based on the zoning; staff calculates the number of driveways or houses/apartments, and then staff can generate an approximate number of automobiles that travel that road in a given day. In comparing the number anticipated and the actual numbers from the traffic study, it provides staff the percentage used to calculate the amount of cut-through traffic. Commissioner Myers suggested modifying the wording to say “20% or more of traffic is cut through traffic”. Commissioner Thornton inquired about how often Traffic Engineering would check in on traffic numbers through a traffic study. Tim Griffeth explained that they complete traffic studies on an as-needed basis. Commissioner Houle suggested changing the word “chosen” to “identified” under the Neighborhood Notification and Opt-out Procedure section. Under this same section, Commissioner Houle also inquired about who can make the request for a meeting. Stephen Bailey explained that, under the previous policy, there was usually a neighborhood champion; a neighborhood champion does not necessarily need to be identified under this new version of the policy, but the person who requested the meeting was always from one of the affected parcels. Stephen Bailey explained the policy could allow any of the affected residents or the district commissioner to request the meeting. Commissioner Houle recommended modifying the language to say “upon the request of an affected resident, property owner, or the district commissioner”. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Houle also noted that the policy says “within 10 days of the mailout”; they requested clarification on whether this referred to within 10 days of the mail being sent or received. Rani Katreeb suggested it be when mail is received, but he noted that if the Committee desired something more specific, he believes it is warranted. Commissioner Houle further explained that, when they read the policy, it occurred to them that the day the letter is sent is the date known; however, if it is 10 days of being sent, there may not be sufficient time for someone to receive it and then respond. Assistant Manager Jones inquired about whether or not the notifications were sent by certified mail. Stephen Bailey explained that they did not, as staff previously tried to send it as certified mail, and it was extremely expensive. Commissioner Houle recommended defining it to refer to the date sent and extending the deadline beyond 10 days. The Committee agreed to modify the deadline to 30 days after the notification is sent. Commissioner Houle also requested clarification on whether or not, after the 45 days, the requirement is that the property owners have sent it back or for staff to have received it. Commissioner Myers suggested clarifying the language to say “they will have 45 days from the mailed notification to gather signatures from 65% of homeowners to opt-out of the traffic calming measures and to deliver them via mail or in-person to the Traffic Engineer”. Commissioner Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 010424  Wright suggested modifying it further to say “deliver signatures via mail or in-person”. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Culpepper recommended extending the deadline beyond 45 days. The Committee agreed to modify the deadline to deliver signatures to 60 days. Commissioner Myers inquired as to whether or not the department also sent notification to the district commissioner when the notification letters were sent. Tim Griffeth explained that they do not currently. Commissioner Myers requested staff notify the district commissioner as well, so they will be informed and able to address questions from constituents. Stephen Bailey explained that they would incorporate that into their department Standard Operating Procedures. Commissioner Houle requested modifying Section 5 to say “agenda item” in the second sentence. Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the proposed Residential Traffic Management Program policy. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Rani Katreeb shared the status of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) and Commission-Defined Option-Approved project lists. He explained the difference between the approved permanent NTMP projects, approved pilot NTMP projects, and legacy NTMP projects. Rani Katreeb explained that the approved pilot projects will be constructed with temporary materials, and the legacy projects are roadways that were requested in 2022 and 2023 by at least one resident with studies that have been completed by staff. He also explained that the commission-defined option that was approved in May 2023 prioritized the list of roadways and provided direction to install the permanent while thinking about and implementing the pilot program roadway projects. The permanent NTMP projects are funded; staff has received the bid for construction, the contract has been awarded. He shared that staff anticipates moving forward with notice to proceed in the next few weeks. In regards to the pilot program roadways, staff has been working internally with their subject matter experts to identify on each street what type of facility is most appropriate. Once staff has identified the most appropriate facility, they will request pricing from the contractor and then prepare a change order to be considered for approval by Mayor and Commission. He noted that the legacy list roadways were requested by at least one resident. Staff scheduled meetings to discuss the request, and he noted that, therefore, residents are likely expecting something to happen based on the request. Three of the legacy roadways are considered collectors. Commissioner Thornton noted that most of the areas on the project lists seem to be apartment and multi-family areas. She inquired as to whether or not this would pose a challenge for opting out. Stephen Bailey advised that he did not anticipate it posing a problem, as similar to the process outlined in the policy, it could be a renter, owner, or district commissioner that begins the opt-out process. Rani Katreeb noted that they would need signatures from 65% of people that live or own to opt-out. Stephen Bailey shared that he believes that they will likely extend the opt- out time period beyond 60 days to possibly six months for the pilot projects, given the pilot projects will be available for six months, and it would provide more time for residents to see the infrastructure in place. Commissioner Wright inquired as to whether or not it is feasible logistically to be able to warn people when this is coming, because this was part of the distaste for the Prince Avenue project. Rani Katreeb shared that it is feasible, and staff plans to notify those neighborhoods with what is upcoming and what has been decided to let them know an agenda is moving forward to Mayor and Commission for consideration. Commissioner Wright further inquired about the feasibility of using a digital display when staff gets to the point of installation, given there are more than just the residents that might be impacted by the infrastructure. Tim Griffeth explained that the digital message board is great, but, in some instances, he anticipates that there would be problems, as some would require staff take up a Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 010424  lane of traffic to install one of the digital message boards. He suggested possibly using signage in the neighborhood, which is similar to what they do to communicate an all-way stop being installed, and it is something that staff would be willing to do. Commissioner Wright agreed. Rani Katreeb shared that there are eight remaining studied roads that were not included in the commission-defined option but that were left over from 2022 and 2023 list of studied roads. He explained that, for these roadways, residents requested their roadway be included on the NTMP project list. He noted that, for these remaining roadways, the process stalled somewhere in between the meeting with the residents and the residents obtaining 65% of signatures consenting to participate in the formerly request-based policy. Rani Katreeb further explained that five of the roadways on the legacy list are local residential roads that qualify under both the former policy and the policy updated and proposed by the Committee. Staff recommended that the five local residential roadways on the legacy list remain on top of the future project list of roadways that will be based on the new criteria provided in the proposed policy. This would allow construction and implementation of those projects subsequent to the pilot projects. Three of the roadways on the legacy list are considered collectors; these roads will be considered for future local road safety plans and will be included in the speed management toolkit efforts that staff are currently working on and anticipate bringing forward to the Mayor and Commission this year. Commissioner Myers requested further clarification on why staff recommended the requested legacy list be prioritized over other roadways when they did not fulfill all of the requirements under the former policy. Assistant Manager Jones explained that the legacy list roadways are representative of requests by residents to opt-in to the former policy, and these were included on the former list of projects under NTMP. He further explained that, if we move forward with the proposed policy revisions that change the policy to a data-driven approach to qualify for the traffic management program, the legacy road segments will be significantly lower on the priority list; he noted that it is likely that staff would not get to those roadways under the new policy in the next five to ten years. Commissioner Myers inquired as to whether or not the legacy roadways that would be moved to the top of the new priority list would be required to still obtain 65% of signatures to move their project forward. Staff advised that they would not. Commissioner Myers expressed concern that there might be some residents concerned that these legacy roadways did not have to follow the old or new policy and that it may appear that these projects received an advantage over others. Stephen Bailey explained that, ultimately, this is a political decision for Committee and Commission consideration. Commissioner Thornton explained that she does not believe that they are penalizing people who may not have checked in before. She further noted that the Committee is aware the old process for qualification under the NTMP was not the best process. She explained that, with the new process, they are starting from scratch and moving forward; however, she reiterated that multiple meetings took place with residents for the project roadways within her district. Commissioner Myers shared that she understood that there was significant resident involvement and discussions with the projects that Commissioner Thornton discussed; she inquired as to whether there were any projects under the legacy list that had minimal involvement. Tim Griffeth explained that staff had meetings with each resident group for the legacy list roadways. He also noted that, for one of the projects, staff did not hear anything from residents in about a year until recently, and the residents have shared that they did obtain the required signatures, though staff had never received them. Commissioner Houle inquired about how many streets per year on average staff anticipated tackling, once the program is in motion and assuming they receive the funding they would be requesting. Stephen Bailey advised that the funding source is TSPLOST 2023, and he would estimate funding would allow implementation of around five to seven neighborhoods each year. Rani Katreeb advised that he believed it likely would be less than that; however, it would be dependent on each project, as each project is different given the needs for each roadway may be Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 010424  different. Commissioner Houle also inquired about the minimum or maximum number of projects that could be accomplished given staff capacity. Rani Katreeb explained that the work is currently performed by a contractor, so, from a staffing perspective, they can handle up to seven to ten roads. Commissioner Houle clarified that the streets that were prioritized in the commission-defined option for the pilot program were based on how they ranked according to criteria that is not the same as, but very similar to the one that is included in the new proposed policy. There were also neighborhoods that completed the process to opt-in to the former policy, and those roadways just moved forward; they noted that a bunch of these streets were very low on the priority list in terms of our data, but given they already completed the former process, those projects were funded. Commissioner Houle explained that, since they are already funding several roadways that have navigated the former process successfully but are low priority based on data, and there are only five legacy roadway, which could be implemented in one year, they suggest moving forward with the legacy list; once those have been completed, it would be a clean slate for everyone and based on the data. Commissioner Houle made a motion to advance the policy as modified, allowing for staff to make Scrivener’s edits, with the following addition recommendations:  The projects on the pilot list be kept at the top of the project priority list upon successful completion of the pilots; and  The projects on the legacy list remain at the top of the project priority list below the completed pilot projects under the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Commissioner Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Commissioner Houle requested staff clearly highlight how the roadways that are categorized as Collectors can move forward under the other program staff referenced in the agenda report as it moves forward, given the amount of interest and concern expressed by both residents and commissioners in those areas regarding the need for traffic calming. Commissioner Myers explained that the Committee will revisit the voluntary, opt-in policy at a future meeting. Commissioner Wright suggested the Committee wait on discussion of the voluntary, opt-in policy until the proposed policy has been adopted by the full Mayor and Commission. D. Examine modifications to the Code of Ordinances related to invasive plant species, specifically identify means by which bamboo and other plant species in the ordinance can be mitigated Assistant Manager Jones summarized past discussion on the topic. He explained that there are seemingly two issues: public nuisance issue and the planting of new invasive plant species. He reviewed the proposed definition for invasive plants, as discussed in a previous Committee meeting. Staff reviewed education and outreach opportunities. Assistant Manager Jones shared that, if Code Enforcement officers are expected to enforce new requirements for invasive plants, they will need to have information in their hands to provide to property owners as they go to discuss any complaints or issues to help educate them. Commissioner Thornton shared that she was happy to see the education piece; she noted that the University of Georgia has a large plant sale every spring and fall, and this would be an opportunity that staff could consider taking advantage of for education and outreach. Commissioner Wright also suggested looking into the Archway Partnership as well. Mike Wharton explained that staff already has a list of native plants that are commercially available in this area on our website. Assistant Manager Jones reviewed that there was one invasive plant, the Princess tree, on the ACC Tree List that staff recommends removing from the list. He also shared that, if the Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 010424  Commission adopts the recommended definition of invasive plants, staff will automatically remove any invasive plants from the Tree List that become categorized as invasive in the future in accordance with our definition. He shared that one of the considerations for this is the conservation aspect of the trees; he explained that, as of today, the Princess tree would count toward the tree canopy for a development, but it is a policy decision as to whether or not the Committee and Commission would like that moving forward. Assistant Manager Jones explained that, if the Committee did not want the tree to count towards the tree canopy for a development, it would mean the developer would have to obtain a waiver or plant additional trees. Commissioner Wright inquired as to whether or not they could require the developer to remove the tree. The Committee discussed the potential for a waiver and if they could require action by the developer to remove the tree in order to grant the waiver. Staff advised that a waiver is granted at the discretion of the Planning Director. Assistant Manager Jones explained that he believes that the Commission could likely require developers to remove the trees. Mike Wharton suggested evaluating whether or not an incentive could be provided to encourage removal by not requiring the developer to replant a tree but to allow growth of native habitat. Assistant Manager Jones shared that another consideration is the impact to the cost of development. Commissioner Culpepper shared that any expense that the developer incurs based on the requirements of the Commission is going to increase the price or rent of the house/unit, which could prove counterproductive to the Commission’s goals on affordable housing. He suggested it be done through a credit or something to offset the cost. Commissioner Culpepper inquired about how many there are of the Princess trees and if it is a major problem. Mike Wharton advised that it varies by site. Stephanie Green shared that she does not believe that there is a significant portion of the tree canopy comprised of invasive plants. She also noted that, though there are areas that are very close to us geographically that have enough Bradford Pear to where removal would be a significant problem, Athens-Clarke County does not have a significant amount. She shared that she cannot think of an invasive tree species that would have such impact on canopy cover as it pertains to planning and development that would make it a significant issue for developers and clearing for affordable housing. Commissioner Houle inquired as to any thoughts on this issue that the Planning Director might have. Assistant Manager Jones shared that he believed the Planning Director would be very sensitive to the development community. Commissioner Wright explained that she believed if the invasive tree species was not counted toward the tree canopy for a development, it may naturally encourage removal by the developer without requiring it, as they may need the spot to plant a different tree. Commissioner Houle shared that they believe we should specifically prohibit the planting of invasive tree species by developers and remove any of them as counting towards tree canopy requirements. They noted that they believe that requiring the removal in conserved areas is probably more onerous on developers than the Committee wants to be; however, they did inquire about how language could be incorporated to require removal in areas that are not part of the conserved canopy. Commissioner Houle also suggested that, for the purposes of credit for tree canopy, they not allow any of the invasive tree species under categories 1, 2, 3, or 4 of invasive plant species be counted. The Committee agreed to discuss this further at the next meeting. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for February 1, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Culpepper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 6 010424