Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-18 TranscriptionPage 1 Council Present: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Teague, Taylor, Thomas, Weiner Staff Present: Fruin, Monroe, Dilkes, Fruehling, Hightshoe, Sitzman, Russett, Knoche, Havel, Nagle-Gamm, Rummel, Bockenstedt, Seydell-Johnson, Fleagle Others Present: Lenkaitis (UISG) Discuss development proposal on 400 block of N. Clinton 1041: Teague/ And over to the City of Iowa City .... City Council, um, work session for February 18, 2020, and um, our first item on the agenda is the discussion of the development proposal on 400 block of N. Clinton Street, which is IP4. And hello! Russett/ Good afternoon, uh, Mayor and Council, Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development Services. As the Mayor mentioned, this is a discussion on the 400 block of N. Clinton Street. Here's an overview of my presentation. This site actually has quite a bit of background, so I'm gonna go over the history of this site and where we're at today and .... and why we're .... why we're discussing it now. Um, I'm gonna share some images of the existing development on these sites, as well as the proposed development. I'll cover the comments that we've received to date, um, from some stakeholder groups in the community, including the Preservation Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation. I'm gonna go over a summary of the existing conditions, kind of what's on the ground now today and what could be built under the current zoning, and then what has been proposed for the site, and then we have some questions for Council, and what we're really looking for from the Council tonight is some direction moving forward on next steps. So this is an aerial of the site. It's 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. It's identified in red, and then 400 N. Clinton Street, and 112 E. Davenport Street. Uh, this is Currier Residence Hall to the west. In terns of background, this started back in 2018 where the City Council considered a local landmark designation for 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. They then deferred the decision on that local landmark designation to January, 2019, while staff explored a citywide transfer of development rights ordinance. And the purpose of the TDR program was to explore if there was interest in creating a citywide policy where property owners could locally landmark a historic property and then transfer some of the development potential from that historic site to an alternative site, a receiving site where the development was more appropriate. Staff spent some.... several months working on that ordinance. Um, the ordinance ultimately was not passed. So, um, in January of 2019 Council reconsidered the local landmark designation and although there was support for the designation, the vote required a super -majority and it failed at Council. After the failed vote, um, staff reached out to the property owner of 410, 412 N. Clinton Street to explore options for a voluntary local landmark designation, and the property was .... property owner was open to exploring a scenario where the City would grant extra development potential for 400 N. Clinton and 112 E. Davenport Street in exchange for the local landmark designation of 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. Um, we have received some concepts for that redevelopment, which I'll share. Um, last month staff This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council session of February 18, 2020. Page 2 presented this redevelopment option to the Commission, Historic Preservation Commission received some comments, and then a few weeks ago the property owner submitted a demolition application for 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. So again the proposal is to locally landmark 410, 412 in exchange for, uh, extra development potential for these two sites here, 400 N. Clinton and 112 E. Davenport. Here are some images of what's on the ground today. This is the historic property at 410, 412. This is the .... the building at 400 N. Clinton Street. And the building at 112 E. Davenport Street. And here's a view from the southwest corner looking at 410 and 400 N. Clinton Street. And then across the street to the west is Currier Residence Hall. Next I'm gonna share the plans, which have been submitted by the property owner for the redevelopment of 400 N. Clinton and 112 E. Davenport. Here is the .... here's 410, 412, the historic property, and then this is the proposed redevelopment right here. This is showing, um, the underground parking, 21 parking spaces that would be provided underground. Um, in total it's a six -story block - scale building with a total of 30 dwelling units. Access to the parking is provided via the alley to the north, through the 410, 412 property. Here's an elevation, uh, the Clinton Street elevation. And the Davenport Street elevation. So again this is, uh, six .... 71 bedrooms, 300 units .... or 30 units, excuse me. So some of the comments that we received, um, since staff has started exploring this with the property owner. Uh, we presented this to Council several months ago, the previous City Council, and there was interest in exploring a four-story structure that was similar to Currier Hall, and um, there was interest in having a high level of design review to ensure that the development would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff also received comments from Friends of Historic Preservation. They were concerned about the demolition of 400 N. Clinton Street, but they also felt that 410, 412 was too important not to try to save. Um, however they wanted us to consider some additional provisions. Um, one of which was the .... the rehab of 410 N. Clinton Street in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's standards for the exterior, um, ensuring a compatible adjacent use; a design review on the rehab work by the Historic Preservation planner and the Historic Preservation Commission; a discussion of listing in the National Register and tax credits; and design review of the new building, um, to maybe include the Preservation Commission, and then lastly any salvage of any buildings that would be demolished. Staff presented this concept at the Commission's meeting last month and, um, Friends of Historic Preservation were also at this meeting and they reiterated the importance of 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. Um, they did recommend some design changes to the proposed building, that was, um, that I, uh, just showed to you. They recommended removing the six.... sixth story; um, allowing the fifth story to be built without a step -back; and replacing the gabled roof with a flat roof to ... to help reduce the scale. Um, we also discussed this with the Historic Preservation Commission. Um, there was .... there was some concern that the properties, that historic properties are being held hostage, that urn .... that the history of the community is being leveraged for private gain; and ideally that they'd also like to see 400 N. Clinton Street saved, but they also, urn .... the main takeaway was that they thought it was important to work with the property owner to achieve an Iowa City landmark designation for 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. They were interested in exploring the recommended changes to the design that Friends of Historic Preservation outlined. They also expressed a need similar to Friends of Historic Preservation for rehab on the historic structure. They recommended transparency in the process in terms of the public This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 3 benefits that would be received versus the bonus heights or the ... the private gains that would be received by the property owner. And that there was a concern that certain features of the buil .... built environment, such as height, um, that those need to be, um, carefully considered. There was also, um, an interest in exploring a more comprehensive solution, um, something similar maybe to a transfer of development rights ordinance, um, instead of negotiating these on a case-by-case basis. One of the questions that was raised by the Commission, um, was what could be built on the sites right now, what's there currently, and so I'm gonna share a few slides, um, that outline what's there now and what could be redeveloped. This was .... this was not shared with the Commission at the time though. Um, so let's start with 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. In terms of existing conditions, it's zoned RM -44, which is high-density, multi -family. There are currently 18 dwelling units and nine parking spaces. In terms of maximum redevelopment potential, the maximum number of units would be 24. Um, that's just based.....that's a straightforward density calculation. It doesn't incorporate any of the other zoning regulations -- setback, uh, building coverage, open space, parking. Um, the open space requirement for 24 units is 2,400 square feet and 24 parking spaces, and the maximum height would be 35 feet. Looking at 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street to the south, it's also zoned RM -44. There are 11 units there currently and seven parking spaces. If it was redeveloped under the existing zoning, RM -44, it could get a maximum of 24 units. Again, um, that's not incorporating other zoning regulations. Um, there would be a minimum open space requirement of 2,400 square feet, 24 parking spaces, and the maximum height would be 35 feet. If this site was rezoned to PRM, they could get a few more units, up to 27, but they would also need, uh, more open space and more parking. The PRM zone does have bonus provisions that allow increases in height, uh, reduced setbacks. So the .... the PRM zone, uh, with the current bonus provisions allows up to 65 feet with those bonuses. This slide summarizes, uh, what the property owner has proposed. So it would be a rezoning to PRM. The number of units proposed is 30, that's 71 bedrooms. Um, there's currently no open space shown on the plan. There are, uh, 21 parking spaces. It's a six -story structure, and based on these plans, urn .... they would sh.... they show that the following would need to be .... the following zoning regulations would need to be waived and modified. So it'd be reduced setbacks, increased height, increased density, increased building coverage, reduced parking, and reduced open space. So this would require a text amendment to our zoning code, to allow more than what the current PRM zoning provisions allow. And this .... this table is just kind of a summary of the existing conditions versus potential redevelopment, um, just all in one slide. So with that, urn .... we have several questions for the City Council tonight, um, which are up on the screen right now. I'll just walk through those. Um, we ... we wanna know if the City Council wants staff to continue coordinating with the property owner on the design of the building and draft the necessary code changes. Um, we're interested to know if there are certain code changes that the City Council would not support, for example reduced parking, increased density, reduced open space. Urn ... we're interested to know what type of design process the City Council envisions if this property is rezoned to PRM. That would allow multi -family building to be built there through a staff level, administrative review. So if there is more process that the Council envisions, we'd kind of like to know what that would look like. Um, there would be obviously a rezoning process, so that would be a discretionary review that would come to .... to the City Council, as well. And This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 4 then if there are any other factors that City Council would like staff to consider. Um, just to give some examples, there have been several items that have come up through this discussion on the rehab of 410, 412 N. Clinton Street, salvage of, uh, building materials, that type of thing. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Teague/ Okay. Any... questions (mumbled) for Anne? So ... we have questions before us that staff want .... so maybe we'll start with number one, and that is .... does the staff want staff to continue coordinating with the property owners on this design of the building' and draft the necessary code changes. And we might, I don't know if people have comments just on ... in general about the project itself that you wanna throw out there first. Mims/ Yeah, to me .... there's some other issues that need to be answered before that first question can be answered, and in terms of what kind of code changes that we could agree to (mumbled) agree to for ...400, um, N. Clinton and 112, uh, E. Davenport. When I look at that, um, the proposed building there, to me it doesn't fit at all in that neighborhood. Um, you know, most of those are two, two and a half story, I think, buildings around there, more house .... style dimension buildings. Um, when we had talked about it before we had talked about, you know, if we were going to support something like that then certainly nothing taller than Burge. This is significantly taller than that, and just (mumbled) block -long building to me doesn't fit, and so I .... I feel like we're in a ... I feel like we're in a real quandary, um, in terms of where do people put more priority, and that is in preserving, uh, 410, 412, um. .... versus .... this, I mean cause to preserve that, at this point with what's being proposed, we're, you know, what's being asked is something I wouldn't support. So I .... I'll just leave it at that for this point. Taylor/ I think in response to that, Susan, I think it was described pretty clearly, uh, as those properties being held hostage, uh, for the approval of...of this property, and when I first saw the pictures I .... I was exciting, having lived in Currier many, many years ago, I thought, `Oh, that looks just like Currier,' and then I realized, no, this is much taller, this six stories, and I thought we'd made it clear and one of the points was that we'd made it clear that perhaps four stories at the max. Uh, I do feel it's important to preserve 410, 412 and I would wish and hope that the developer and property owner would act in good faith and .... and work with us on that. Fruin/ If I could just comment on that. I think I .... I wanna stress to you that staff initiated this discussion, so the Council .... the Council had a chance to designate it and it was a very high threshold to do so. A super -majority's very hard, but um, I personally don't think it's fair to characterize this particular example as .... as holding a.....a property hostage. Um, the owner doesn't even own or control this property. This would involve the owner buying this property in order to preserve that. So from my standpoint, we as a city had a chance to preserve that. We decided not to for .... for good reason, um, and I think that the developer has invested time and money in developing a concept that would work for .... for them. Um, you know they have to look at the economics of it and I think that's what has led to this .... this point. So I just wanna be cautious about you ... urn .... looking at it like .... like it's being held hostage (mumbled) hostage. There's a solution out there. It This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 5 may not be a great solution, it may not be a solution worth pursuing, but I do appreciate the fact that the ... the owner was willing to work with us to this point. Thomas/ Yeah, I certainly appreciate the effort everyone has put into this to try to come to a... you know, resolution that would be satisfactory to all the concerns, and so in a way my .... one of my concerns with respect to that is, you know, is referenced in the staff presentation, the question of ...uh, transparency in the process, because I ... I'd like to have, insofar as I view this, um, as .... as a negotiation that's being driven by in a sense a transfer of development rights, on a kind of-uh, case basis, uh, how .... how do we go through that negotiation? You know, what is .... you know, staff did, and this is the first time I'd seen kind of a .... a matrix indicating, you know, what could happen under current zoning, what could happen under PRM, and so forth. You know, to try to, uh, in good faith negotiate alternatives for the design, uh, based on .... how we .... would, the City through staff and .... and the....the developer find a mutually satisfactory solution with respect to how both sides can feel whole at the end of that process, and you know, I ... I'm not clear how .... the proposal as developed... reflects that because, you know, we .... we don't know what the, um, I....I don't know what staff's response is in terms of what... what ... bow we would estimate the value of that development to be. I think it would be important to have an understanding, kind of like we would with a TIF process, in a sense. Um, you know, try to monetize what it is that's being negotiated so we have a better idea of what the options are. Um ... and how they benefit, uh, all of the parties. So .... so that's something I ... I kind of see as missing, you know, how do we, um ... bow do we on the City side, with staff, understand.... the.... that kind of cost analysis that ... I think I .... I would think we could easily translate from various proposals as to what, you know, what the value of what the land is now, monetarily, and what the value would be with different... with different options. I'm personally willing to .... in terns of some of these questions, explore, urn ... the parking requirement and this is a transit corridor, in my view. It is something where I think, uh, it would be worth considering whether we could waive the parking requirement and .... and let that be determined by the developer, uh, given that there is considerable transit running through this corridor, and we're looking, you know, I tentatively wanna be looking forward in terms of issues related to transportation, because I .... I do tend to think the way we view the world is changing (laughs) and that, how that would be reflected in our parking requirement, especially in a location where it seems, um, we .... we might be able to accept a lower level of par .... off-street parking, to .... to put that on the table. Teague/ This was a project that I was really interested in preserving, uh, historically and we didn't get the ... uh, super -majority vote and so I'm happy to actually see this back, um, before Council, uh, just for the possibility of it potentially bein' preserved. Um, when I think about the area, and I know that some Councilors have already talked about like the area, um, it....it really is an area that when we're lookin' at, um, high density and the proposed project, um, I don't think it's appropriate, and so that's where my interest in tryin' to figure out how can we reserve, um, you know, 410, 412, uh, to be historic. One of the questions that I do have, I know that the Historic Preservation did do a presentation, um, or, you know, submitted some stuff. Has the developers actually responded in any fashion to any of their request? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 6 Russett/ Um, not that I'm aware of, no. Teague/ Okay. Cause sometimes I think that could be, you know, maybe we'll make some comments and hopefully, um, staff can navigate with the developers .... kinda what we're thinkin', and for me this isn't a .... uh, the end of the conversation. I would hope that the developer would be willin' to come back and talk to us about this, um, that this is just the start of the dialogue, um, just to get what Councilors are thinkin' and then maybe, you know, go back, think about it, and then come back with, urn .... you know, ways of how they see that they can move forward, uh, you know, with this project, with some of the things in mind. Of. ... of course, you know, I would be, um, not realistic if I was to believe that everything that we said they would, you know, actually do, but I think it's an opportunity to have a great conversation and, um, you know, it did lack super -majority, but there's some positives for this particular project that I think the Council is interested in. For me the .... again, um, I think some of the Historic Preservation, um, comments, um, I .... I really agree with, um, at least two of them that I wanted to at least point out. Um, that is .... you know, maybe goin' down to five stories, um, and the other is, you know, that setback, um, and so .... um ..... those are the two, and when it comes down to the parking, I think when we're talkin' about climate action and that type stuff, um, this might be a project where, um, I will be willing .... to decrease the parking requirements. Um, we have a .... our transit study, which is actually on our agenda, uh, to get an update about today. Um, climate action, you know, that's somethin' that is, you know, the Council's really dedicated to. So for me, those are probably the three things that, uh, I just wanted to make mention here today. Salih/ I also agree with most of what my fellow Council said, um, to me it's really big change from the current existing like design and like building there to suddenly see six -story building. This is concern for me, and I think, uh, I wanna say like four to five, maybe, uh, but it is for good idea to just go back to the property owner and sit down and talk with him, see if he can agree to do this. Bergus/ Yeah, I'd also be interested in the context of when the Council previously was talking about transfer of development rights that the conversation was like, okay, maybe something up to four that would match Currier. That was in the context of still preserving and transferring rights, right? At that time? Russett/ Not as ... not as part of this citywide ordinance, but after .... for this (both talking) Bergus/ Okay, so ... is there any insight as to how we got from that sort of guidance that the Council provided at that time to the six -story kind of full block proposal? Russett/ Um, well we provided those comments to the property owner and they proposed a, the six -story building which is before you. Fruin/ So we ... we've had a couple of, uh, back and forths as staff with the .... with the property owner to try to, um, bring him more in line with the Council direction from that, uh, work This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 7 session that's bein' talked about now. Uh, at the end of the day I think the message that we've gotten back for the economics to work they need X number of units and right now that puts them at six stories. So .... if, and I think what we're trying to gauge here is .... is six, is there a hard no on six, then that's good to know. We'll go back and say, if there's any way to make five work, four to five, whatever..... whatever you feel is appropriate then we'll give it a go. Council just needs to understand that if that's a hardline at six, it may not go forward, and that of course could put both properties in jeopardy, uh, in terms of, uh, demolishing the existing structures. Bergus/ Are they willing to give any transparency as to that economic analysis? Fruin/ We certainly haven't required them to submit any economic analysis, uh, I ... I don't know if they'd be willing to do that or not. You, we can look at the, uh, the matrix that you ... you put up, maybe if you could put the summary matrix up. I think you can get a ... a decent sense, uh, for.... for the potential for units. So, you know, if you just look across the yellow column there is what they're, uh, proposing, which'd be 30 units, and uh, with the, uh, redevelopment, uh, you're gonna get, uh, a max of 48. Realistically it'll be some number smaller than that because of all the other regulations, urn .... but I .... I don't think what they're asking for far exceeds, certainly if it exceeds at all, what the potential would be if both those properties were razed and .... and developed under the current zoning code. Is that.... accurate, Anne? Russett/ So, um, if the .... if all of the properties are razed (both talking) Fruin/ ....410, 4...uh, 12, 400, and 112 are all razed, they're likely .... I shouldn't, maybe that's not... that's not (mumbled) It's ... it's probable that they could get more than 30 units. Russett/ With all of those sites combined, yeah. Fruin/ Right. But, again, to circle back to your direct question, no we haven't requested any type of economic analysis. Russett/ And .... and if I could just add regarding the six stories versus the five, um....the, and the plans show that those upper units are two story units. So I'm not sure what, if...if it would be a great reduction in the number of units if the .... if the sixth story was removed, so.....um.... that's something that we could ask the developer about. Thomas/ I .... I did a little bit of looking at, you know, I ... was looking at some of the background information on this and there was some discussion of form based coding. We don't have it for this particular area. I .... I did look at some other draft form based codes in other cities and they have.....code requirements for any .... any building proposed adjacent to an historic resource. So there are ways in which we could access some of that information just by, you know, kind of looking at other codes where such a requirement is .... is identified. But this .... this project has this issue again of height and mass, I mean this is a very, you know, it's a six -story building, but it's also kind of a massive building, and with limited amount of articulation to break up that mass, and that's part of what I think the, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 8 you would find with these form based codes is that they would identify ways in which the massing of the building could be articulated in a way where it wouldn't quite seem like such a block, you know, it's .... it's (laughs) kind of a block form and a block shape and how do we .... break down that massing so it doesn't seem quite so large. That .... that might have an impact in addition to changing the roof design to reducing the impact of six stories. Another thing I might be thinking about is .... is these, this building is to the south of our historic resource, so the height of it will have an impact in terms of sunlight, uh, reaching the structure. So if there were a way of. ... and again, this is kind of part of a massing study, to .... to ..... to mass it in such a way that that's acknowledged, so that the .... the, this .... the impacts on sun access would be considered in the .... in the massing of the project. (several talking) Salih/ I just have a question on this like there, uh, this is, um .... a little bit confusing to me. When you say redevelopment rezoning to PRM and... and their height, you say 35 feet, up to 65 with bonuses. Like how many stories is that? Like .... and you say six story, that what they propose, and here you just don't tell us the story and it's just like height. Is that the same, like 60 story also? Russett/ Yeah, you could probably get a six -story building with 65 feet. Yeah. Salih/ Okay. And the 35 is? Russett/ That's the.... that's the base. (both talking) Three, yes, three stories. Yeah. Thomas/ Do we have an actual, um, dimension on the six stories to.... Russett/ I don't know the height and feet, just in stories. Yeah. Thomas/ Cause that matters too, I mean.... Russett/ Yeah. Thomas/ Ultimately what we're talking about is the actual height of the building, not the floors, in my view. Salih/ And also for the ... for the bedrooms number, I really wanna compare, if we redevelopment, to like rezoning to PRM, how many bedroom will be there, and the ask is 30 unit, 71 bedroom, but what about the PRM? How many bedroom will be? Russett/ So the .... the PRM zone without any bonus provisions would be 27 units maximum. Salih/ Uh huh. Russett/ Um .... so even with the bonus provisions in the PRM zone, you couldn't get ... what they have proposed. So that's why we would need the additional text amendments to the code, that would allow them to go above and beyond what the current bonus provisions allow. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 9 Salih/ Yeah, but is there different like really big different, because I wanna compare it is like really huge different or...just.... Russett/ Um, let me see here. I thought I had a summary. So they'd be asking for more units. So three more units. So it'd be an increase in density. Um, they'd be asking for a reduction open space. Currently there isn't that type of bonus provision offered, so that would be new. They're asking for a parking reduction, um, which is also new, something that isn't currently allowed by the code. Um .... they're asking for reduced setbacks, beyond what the current bonus provisions allow. Um, and.... increased, kind of along with that, increased building coverage. Salih/ (mumbled) Okay. Russett/ So the .... the exact numbers I don't have, but generally that's what they.... they would be required, based on what has currently been proposed. Salih/ Okay. Teague/ I think for the benefit of the new Council and maybe even for the public's sake, can you just talk about, um, what it entails to rezone from the 44 to the, um, PRM? Russett/ Yeah, that would ... that would have to go to, uh, the City Planning and Zoning Commission for a review and recommendation to City Council. So it would be....it would be an amendment to our map, our zoning map, and then a text of the code, as well. So it would be two separate rezonings, um, that would pro .... that would go together through that same process through.....through Planning Commission and to City Council. Bergus/ Really basic question about the textual amendment to the zoning code, is it specific to just that property? So it wouldn't be applied throughout the PRM zone? Russett/ Um, we haven't really gotten into the details of what the amendment would look like, but it would be .... we would wanna keep it narrow, so it would be associated with the preservation of a historic structure, is the .... is the thought at this point. Bergus/ But in theory then that maybe could be applied to other similar scenarios where you had someone wanting to do something like this? Russett/ I .... I guess if that's something the Council doesn't want us to explore we could ... we could get it as narrow as possible. Fruin/ And that's also one of the reasons why we like the PRM zone better than the, uh, the current zone, is because the PRM is kind of a .... there's not a whole lot of PRM left. It's a .... it's a zoning classification that's largely been phased out of the community, uh, whereas the RM -44 is still widely used throughout the city. So I think we could tarrow it, uh, narrow it, um, enough to where in all likelihood it would just apply to this property. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 10 Thomas/ And .... and PRM is planned residential multi -family, is that.... Russett/ Yeah, that's correct. Mims/ Anne, can you tell me ..... I just got two or three questions here. By right the property owner could raze all four of these properties, correct? Russett/ Yes. Mims/ Okay. And so with the grid that you had up there, keeping them separate.... they could redevelop 410, 412 with a maximum of 24 units and they could redevelop 400 N. Clinton and 112 E. Davenport with 24 units, correct? Russett/ That's right, not considering... the other zoning regulations, such as parking and open space. Mims/ So those .... okay, so those could very well be reduced (both talking) Russett/ Yes! Mims/ (both talking) ...once you start getting into the nitty gritty of those issues. Okay. What . about, um, would there be any restrictions in terms of how large that building is? In other words, could somebody combine these say four parcels and put one huge building on there, accommodating the parking and open space requirements. Russett/ Yeah, they could. It could be a block scale building. That's 35 feet height maximum. Um, it would be subject to our multi -family site development standards, but um, it could be one building. Thomas/ Was there any discussion of demolishing the apartment building behind the historic building, as part of. ... (mumbled) scenario or was that ... not considered? Russett/ We discussed that with the property owner very early on and there wasn't an interest to do that. Bergus/ Just so we don't lose site of it, I am interested in the, um, rehabilitation and salvage recommendations from, um, I think .... was that the Friends of Historic Preservation that brought that up? I don't know how other people feel (mumbled) those details. Salih/Yeah, sure. Thomas/ Yeah, I .... I thought there were a number of good recommendations without going through them. I don't know that any of them .... I would say I disagreed with. I think they're all worth considering. Personally. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 11 Teague/ So I know that, again, you have some questions for Council, and.... Fruin/ Well I think ... I think maybe the first one that could .... could end it all is are you comfortable with the mass and scale as presented now, and if the answer is no, um, do you think you could get comfortable with a .... a five -story or a four, you know, at what point do you think you become comfortable? Is it three, four, five? Um, because I think the rest is .... will kind of fall into place once we get a sense of your willingness to accept scale. Teague/ And I guess I .... I did state, you know the three things and that was one, goin' to the five..... stories. Mims/ Yeah, I'm not comfortable with six. Taylor/ I'm not either. Thomas/ I'm .... I'm not comfortable as it's presented. Again I don't know (laughs) you know, it may be possible....with.... with a very different approach, in terms of building articulation, the use potentially of open space to help with that articulation, but as presented I ... I think it clearly would require, uh, a re.....a reworking. Mims/ I guess where I also come down is, and this, you know, involves negotiation obviously, is .... I .... I would hate to see us make a decision that, okay, you know, here .... here's our line and the developer says, okay, forget it, I can't work with that, and then we end up with all four of these properties razed, and end up with a 35 -foot high block scale building, because I think then you're probably almost as bad off as anything else that could be. So I guess I say that to say .... (mumbled) .... a whole lot of guidance, see what else you can negotiate (laughs) I mean.... Thomas/ Yeah, I .... what you just described is .... is really the worst scenario, and uh, as much as I think those of us who would like to preserve the building have, um, concerns about what goes up next to it, the thought of that is even more problematic. So it ... you know, I have been concerned, sort of a citywide basis, with the loss of our lot size type development, and the more we end up consolidating and seeing block form buildings, that's a transformational change. So I .... I do wanna try (laughs) aside from preserving this building, the .... the scale of smaller buildings, I think, is an important .... uh, strategy we should be exploring. And that can be accomplished in a larger project. Teague/ From my perspective I really feel like, um, I would hope that the staff can convey that this is just the start of the conversation. Hopefully with whatever we've talked about today, uh, the developers clearly hear, um, you know, the many voices of Council and that, um, they can find a .... a way to, um, maybe .... a path to give us somewhat what we want, um.....for the community, you know, and um, so hopeful that you all will be able to navigate. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 12 Bergus/ Did we give enough direction or did we have enough conversation among ourselves about these specific things, like density, parking, and reduced open space? Should we articulate that a little better? Mims/ Yeah, I don't have a problem with reduced parking, particularly given the proximity to the University. Um .... with the right design, I don't have a problem with increased density. I do .... I'd be concerned about how much open space reduction we would give, cause I think it is important for people to have some place, some space outside, so .... it's a bit iffy for me on that one. Bergus/ That's pretty much where I would be as well. I'd be okay reducing parking. My concern, I would correlate my concern with the height and the scale of this building with the lack of open space, right? It looks like they're just really trying to maximize no setbacks, no open space, you know, less parking, um, and that .... that seems, um, too extreme to me, so you know, I'd be willing like the height consideration has to relate, I think, to that open space, like the concept of a taller building, as John was saying, maybe done in a way that isn't so .... extreme. Weiner/ I would agree with Susan and Laura. In some ways when I step back from this I look and say, well, the .... the previous Council made a decision, and now we're in this somewhat awkward position looking at those .... at those two buildings, because the previous Council couldn't muster a super -majority for whatever reason, because of property rights, so .... we .... we need to look at that and think about that as well, and I agree with what the Historic Preservation Commission stated, which is I think that going forward we should consider perhaps a more holistic approach to this sort of issue, because this is not the first time it's come up. It won't be the last time it comes up. Teague/ I do wonder if we have a little more discussion on increased density because, um, you know, now .... they could go and .... you know, the square footage becomes really small in order to in .... increase the number of occupants, um, so I don't know if people have any comments about... about that. I .... you know, on one level I hear students saying, you know, give me a closet (laughs) and I'll sleep in it, you know, as long as the rents are, you know, low. Um,so I .... I think at least .... from my perspective, just to have some type of intentionality about the conversation when it comes down to increased density, of course. I don't know if they know what their market rate will be or the rates they'll have for the properties, but I think that is somethin' that I ... I at least wanted to mention, that it is important, um, the .... the density. I a1 .... I do foresee this always bein' a student, um... you know, run and lived in, uh, property, and so, urn .... it's just the density, just need to have a little intentional conversation surroundin' that. Thomas/ Density's kind of a .... it's a complicated .... it's not even clear to me what... what.... what's the intent there when we say increase density, what are we .... what does that mean? Do you have a .... did you have something.... Mims/ I mean I guess the way I would look at it is ... is staff is asking us are we willing to look at density higher than what the current code is, and to me (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 13 Thomas/ How are we measuring density? Russett/ Dwelling units per acre. Thomas/ Units per acre (both talking) Taylor/ Not the size (both talking) Thomas/ ... the ... another way of measuring density would be occupancy levels, I mean there are a number of three-bedroom units in these, in this proposal, which means fewer units, but a fairly large number of occupants. So are we talking occupant density or unit density (laughs) urn .... it's just a little unclear to me. Russett/ It's dwelling units per acre. Thomas/ Right. Russett/ And, um.... Thomas/ Under the PRM and RM -44? Russett/ Yeah, and ... and it...it does change, um .... the size of the unit.... changes. The density calculation changes based on whether it's a one -bedroom, two-bedroom, or three- bedroom unit. So the one -bedroom is .... allows the highest density, um, versus a three- bedroom, which would be a lower density. Teague/ Anything else? For staff? All right, thank you! All right! Any other comments on this from Councilors? All right, we are going to move on to transit study! We're excited to hear about this. Transit Study Update: Nagle -Gamin/ All right, thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Councilors. Darian Nagle-Gamm, Transportation Services Department. I'm here to provide you with a brief update on the transit study. If you can believe it, we're about halfway through the planning process. So I'm excited to share some updates with you about where we're at and where we're going from here! Teague/ Great! Nagle-Gamm/ First and foremost, just to revisit who's all involved in the transit study. So of course Iowa City is lead agency, but we have partnered with Cambus, with the University of Iowa, and with the City of Coralville. We've also reached out to many different stakeholder groups in the community, and that's, uh, advocacy groups, um, economic development organizations, schools, civic organizations, uh, various committees, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 14 sustainability groups. There's really been a lot of folks that we've reached out to in the community who have, um, who have helped us along in this process. Nelson\Nygaard is our consultant team that's been helping guide us through this process. Um, they've got experience across the United States in helping communities just like ours, um, walk through their transit studies and a revision of their transit system. And last but not least, uh, the public has been a very important, uh, participant in the study, and we'll walk through a little bit more about, um, what our public outreach has looked like. Um, also I'd like to just revisit some of the goals with the transit study, um, to bring these to the forefront of your mind and of course first and foremost we're really looking at ways that we can increase ridership. So that means making transit more dependable for those who rely on it every day, and we're making .... our goal is to make transit an easier choice for those that have more mobility options, and we .... even laid down a very explicit goal, um, and a .... and a high -reaching goal, but um, a .... doubling our ridership over the next 10 years. So it's pretty lofty, but uh, we think with the correct service design, um, and some new initiatives, we ... we can ... we can get there. We also have a goal of working better across our agencies. Of course we're really a three agency system, transit system in the metro area, and we're increasingly connected and we have people traveling across our metro area, um, every single day, so we're really trying to create a more streamlined experience for our customers and make it, uh, easier and make things more similar across our agencies. I would say one of our .... one of our biggest goals, um, besides increasing ridership, you know, the question of how do you get to that increased ridership is really removing barriers to transit use. So that's anything from improving our service levels, to actually making it a service that meets people's needs, or better meets people's needs, to improving our trip planning capabilities, um, improving information distribution, making transit easier for people to understand, easier to access, um, you know, getting that data out there, um, so the people don't have to memorize the system. They can, you know, dial it up on their phone, it can be very easy, for people to choose transit. We also want to make our transit stops more comfortable, and that could be anything from amenities like benches or trash cans, some shelter, um, some of our new bus shelters have solar lighting at night. That's been really well received from the community. So just how can we improve those things so people are comfortable when they're at transit stops, and I would say the last barrier that we're really looking to tackle is simplifying the system. Again, so when people look at transit and it seems so complicated to them, so how can we structurally make our transit system easier for people to use, easier for people to understand. Course another goal ties right in with our climate action initiatives and our climate action plan and that's just reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We all know that transportation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in this community, and the climate action plan calls for us to enable a shift of 55% of vehicle trips to more sustainable modes — biking, walking, transit comes to mind, um, to meet our greenhouse gas reduction goals by the year 2050. And we don't wanna forget supporting the local economy. I mean that's .... the transit system connects people to jobs, people to shopping trips, people to social activities, every single day. Um, that keeps our local economy running strong. So we wanna make sure that we are building a system for the future that helps support that and grow that aspect, and then last but not least, leveraging emerging technology. This is where things get kind of exciting because, um, you know, we're in, as Councilman Thomas mentioned earlier, we're in a pretty exciting time in terms of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 15 transportation, and things are going to look very different in the next few years. We're in a time of transition and so it's a good point to stop and evaluate what sort of emerging technologies are out there right now that we can leverage today to help make public transportation and mobility better for our community. So those are our goals. I'm just gonna quickly transition to what is included in ICATS, that's the Iowa City Area Transit Study. You might see that acronym a few times. Uh, just to briefly sort of run down the process here, but .... first and foremost, public outreach has occurred throughout the process and I'll get a little bit more into detail on that ... on the next slide, but we've also conducted a market analysis to understand where our transit riders are, uh, where our potential transit riders are across the community. We have analyzed our existing service levels and we've also developed some fixture service options and scenarios. Our consultant team has taken a lot of that feedback we've heard from the community, and we'll talk a little bit more about what those service scenarios might look like, and really right now where we're at in the process is we are evaluating some future service options and scenarios. So we're asking the community to do some .... some tough work and really evaluate the system and some.... some actual alternatives, and let us know what, um, what they think. And from that, we'll be developing recommendations for what the transit system of the future might look like. So, public outreach, phase one. So I'm going to rewind, take us all back in time to last fall, um, just to give you an update of, you know, where.... how.... how we got to where we're at today. Um, so basically from September to December we held approximately 20 -some stakeholder, outreach meetings. We had three very well attended public open house meetings. We were able to sit down with 1,000 Iowa City transit riders, while they're on the bus, and talk to them about how, um, how they use transit today, where're they going, um, what are the gaps they see in service or what service improvements would they like to see. We were able to get one .... 1,300, excuse me, uh, members of the public to submit a `design your own transit system' survey, which was, um, really great. It helped us understand what the community's priorities are for transit system enhancements relative to each other. Of course we all know, um, any one of us could design the ultimate transit system with unlimited funds and blank checks, but you know we .... we live in a world where we have, you know, limited access to financial resources, so we really need to prioritize, and the community really helped us walk through, uh, the 1,300, um, submissions. We were thrilled to see that kind of participation. And then last but not least, operator and staff interviews. So we sat down with our transit staff and said what do you think, I mean these are the people that are on the road every day that talk to customers every single day. What do you see as some things that we really need to take a hard look at in terns of our transit system. And on top of those meetings, um, and those public outreach events, we got a lot of communications and marketing. We put together a study website, an email list, um, did many group presentations, just like this with anybody who would listen to me talk about, uh, transit. Uh, we reached out to some social service agencies and advocacy partners and had them, um, we had actually a partnership with the mobility coordinator at Johnson County and the Community Transportation Committee, who actually took iPads out into the community to our underserved folks, who are probably the hardest people to reach in terms of getting that feedback, um, about transit, about transit use, and they were able to bring back 125 surveys out of those `design your own system' surveys, which was about 10% of those. So we were really thrilled about that. We also had an extensive media This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 16 campaign. You probably saw some Facebook, Twitter, um, and also City media campaign. The communications, uh, crew did an excellent job. There's many videos that were out there that highlighted our transit system and our study and, um, really helped get the word out, and of course we had legacy press, you know, the print and typical, uh, historical news, television news and print, um, to get that word out, and really the goal for all of that, uh, outreach last fall was really to just understand the community's mobility priorities, um, currently, and where they wanted to go. So, what you see up here on the computer is just an overview, uh, of. .... and I know it's sort of hard to read, so I'll read some of the top ones to you, but this really summarizes the feedback we got from the `design your own' uh, transit system survey, and this ... this is really kind of the one graph that really shows you, that highlights, uh, what the community's desires are, sort of stacked ranked from that first big public outreach...... push and I think the best way to summarize it would be better weekend service was really a most desired improvement. Uh, you could see Sunday service was at the top of the list. But also earlier and later Saturday service. Uh, route and schedule information at stops, that one ranked very high. Um, they want, the public wants to see more information, so they can walk up to a stop and have some information there about when the buses are going to be coming. Uh, another one, uh, that I was, uh, a little bit surprised at but also not surprised I suppose — more lighting at major stops. Uh, judging by how well received the lighting in our new transit shelters has been received by the community, uh, that one, you know, it's a clear indicator that we need to do ... to be doing more of that. Frequent week day or rush hour service, um, we did hear at .... both in the onboard survey and through the `design your own system' survey that frequent service is, uh, the top of people's list. More frequent service, so you think less about when the next bus is coming. You know you just get to a stop and a bus is going to be there before too long. So that was at the top of both surveys. Of course later week day service. We did hear from the community that they wanna be able to take buses more places in the evenings, and then direct service from outlying residential areas also was ranking high. More frequent Saturday service, more benches, shelters. It's again those transit amenities, and I won't read `em all to you, but just to give you a sense of what's sort of at the top of, um, the public's mind from that first big public outreach push. So that brings us to today. So we're... right now we're in our public outreach phase two, and that's really from January, um, until March, and really what we're asking the public to do now is to review three alternate service scenarios and then one sort of vision scenario, and I'll take you through `em on the next slide briefly, but in terms of the outreach, we've presented those scenarios online. We've also, we had three very well attended, um, public open house meetings. You can tell that the public really cares. There was lines three, five, six people deep, um, from every Transit staffer and every consultant that was in the room, um, and every City staffer who was in the room to ask questions, um, give feedback. So we were really thrilled to have that kind of engagement. We've also published all those meeting materials online for anyone to review who wasn't able to attend. We have a formal survey online as well, where the public can ... it's a lot to digest and I'll show you the maps in the next slide, but uh, it's a lot for the public to digest even in one meeting. A lot of folks asked some questions, pointed out some things, but they really needed to take those maps home and just study them, which we understand. So we've provided an online survey, um, that's linked to our website, where the community can take some time, review, respond to both the scenarios, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 17 or just individual route changes that they had comments on. We've also had, uh, for the second, um, outreach push, we've had extensive social and City media campaign. Again, the Communications' team has done a really great job getting that word out, and we're again working with our community partners, as we did in the first round, to help make sure those, uh, who may be .... who aren't gonna be the ones who come attend the meetings or don't have easy access to, um, you know, a mobile device to take the survey on that we're getting, uh, those folks ... we're getting those folks to the survey, to help `em take it. So, in terms of those three scenarios, that we have, uh, we're asking the public now for feedback on. They were developed based on the feedback that we heard from .... from the community during our first public outreach push, and based on expertise of our transit consultant staff and they basically.... each scenario has a different theme. The first scenario's theme, and I know this is very small font, but the first one is "frequency." So really the goal of that was to increase the frequency on the routes, um... uh, to a point where 15 -minute service is what you could provide on some of our, uh, most important arterial streets, in terms of transit service. I should, before I go any further, I should mention too. All of these three scenarios were developed using our current funding available. So basically what our consultant team did is they took our current budget, they took all that feedback that we got from the community, uh, and all their knowledge and expertise from .... from doing this across the country, and they ...they developed these three scenarios, based on the financial resources we have available to us today. So, it's sort of reimagining our transit system and these would ... Us would be no additional dollars, um, this is what we could do today. So again, frequency, the theme of the frequency service was really to provide more frequent service, and a couple things you'll see between all the themes. It's kind of a theme that carries between the themes, if you will, is that the .... the actual service was focused on arterials and our major streets, um, to help get that frequency, which the community was asking for. Um .... you will also notice that in some areas where we probably maybe had .... (mumbled) consider overlapping routes or areas that were served by multiple routes, you could of seen those combined to, um, to create more efficient transit system. And in some areas where service was very low and ridership, that service has been reallocated to other areas. So those are ways in which they took our existing finances and then they resorted them out, based on the community priorities as they heard. Second, uh, scenario is, I think the theme of that would be, uh, `simplified coverage,' and that's again trying to .... there's not as much frequency as in the `frequency' scenario, but it's also trying to make, uh, routes easier, simpler, uh, for .... and more efficient, but also easier for the community to understand. And then the theme of the third scenario was, uh, `restructuring and improving weekends and, uh, evening service.' So we did hear loud and clear that, um, additional weekend service and weekend, excuse me. Additional weekend service and evening service, later service during the evenings, was, um, towards the top of people's lists. So this gets at that particular, um, this is a way to get at, um, increasing that service level at night and on the weekends. In addition, this is the only scenario in which, um, ha.....there is a Sunday service component to it. The Sunday service component that was built in to this, in .... with using our existing finances, was a .... is a demand -response service, where the City is more or less split into four quadrants, and um, to ... briefly give you a .... a service overview, you would call for the service up to an hour before, you need a little time, and there'd be one vehicle running in each quadrant of the city, and they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 18 would all meet back at the downtown interchange once an hour. So that's how... that's how, uh, that's how transfers would happen. So this was the only scenario under which our current resources, we were able to fit a type of Sunday service into it, and we'll talk more about some of those other options, but this is again, these are the three scenarios that we took to the public and .... and they've been providing us feedback, um, on what their thoughts are. So we also, and I've mentioned this a few times as well, but we also asked the consultant team to help us walk through what we could .... what we could do to enhance our services, if we had additional financial resources, um, allocated, uh, towards our system, and they came up with all of these options on the screen. The first one that you all know that we've been evaluating is zero fare transit. Um, the second one is they... they came up with a scenario where they placed 15 -minute service on I I different corridors, which would be pretty remarkable level of service. You really wouldn't have to think a lot about transit service. You just have to be able to get to your nearest arterial street. Um, so it'd be 15 -minute service during the day and the 30 -minute service during the evening. That would be very, uh, high level, high quality, um, frequency of service. Another option would be providing full fixed route service on Sundays, from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and every 30 minutes. Uh, taking that service so it operates to midnight daily. That would require additional resources, but again that was something that we heard from the community. Another option would be to provide some sort of an on - demand night owl, uh, service, uh, from 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M., and this is for the folks in the community that we heard from that have third -shift jobs. They don't necessarily have .... transit system closes down at night and this would be an alternative, uh, for those folks. Another enhanced service option is to provide some on -demand service in areas that are not within a quarter mile of fixed routes. So one aspect of those three scenarios, if you look at the maps a little closer, you will notice that it does, uh, in order to provide the frequency, um, of service. Some .... the coverage area somewhat retracts from our current coverage areas. So this is a way to help support those who live, uh, a greater distance from .... from, um, the proposed transit system designs. Another service is a 30 - minute Saturday service, from 7:00 A.M. until midnight. So that's every half an hour. That would increase our, um, service levels to what we have today. And then it would go later in the evenings, and then last but not least, a new cross-town route that connects, um, key destinations in south and west Iowa City, without requiring a transfer downtown. So those are .... those are things we heard from the community and the consultant team has, uh, preliminarily begun to evaluate some potential options, um, for add-on services. The startup capitol costs for all of these combined, um, is estimated conservatively and preliminarily to be at 12 million at this point, and that's capitol costs. So that's what we would need .... those buses that we would need to .... to get the full program rolling, and in addition, um, all of those (mumbled) items would require about 18 million in ongoing operational costs. That would be annual operational costs, and to put that into perspective, our operational costs are between 7 and 8 million per year currently. So it's .... it's, um, 100..... it's double, slightly over double, um, in terms of what our operational costs are currently to date, to give you sort of a framework. All of this will be, um, we'll be providing more details as we .... as we move through the transit study, on the individual costs and the ridership benefits for each one of these so that, uh, you know, we can sit down and.... and put some deliberation to each one of these and determine if any of these are options that we wanna pursue for the community. Really quickly I'll... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 19 I'll zip through this, but other items. We aren't just evaluating the transit system design, although that's the biggest part of it and that's what's occupying most of our time for the last few months, but we're also again looking at ... we're doing a fare analysis, um, including zero fare. We are, of course, developing strategies to improve our inter -agency coordination, how can we work better with Coralville and Cambus in order to provide service in our community. We are, um, asking the consultants to help us develop, uh, electric vehicle or alternate fuel vehicles, um, there's multiple options out there currently. A no or low -emission vehicle transition plan, so we're very excited about that. We're also looking at interchange improvements. That's one thing we're hearing from the community, um, is that, you know, we need more amenities and our interchange may be ....it's a great location but there's also some drawbacks to that location. So they're helping us look at pedestrian access, um, operational flow, um, bus capacity, and you know, that location in general, is that the ideal location for us. We're also looking at bus stop improvements. Uh, both evaluation of what amenities are out there and what exists at current bus stops, and also bus stop spacing guidelines. There's a .... there's a balance between access and providing efficient transit, um, and so they're helping us to figure out what that .... where that should be. We're also looking at just some general policies and procedures, especially as they connect to our other community partners, and then of course, um, you know, we're really curious about the innovative transit solutions that are out there today and what we can do, um, how we can leverage those, and .... and provide better transit. So, last slide, next steps! So phase two of public input, which is what we're in right now, wraps in late February. So .... basically at the end of the week. Um, so far we've had 800, um, people, uh, weigh in to our survey online, give us some detailed feedback. So we're really looking forward to startin' to dig into that. Um, from that point, we're.... once we get through all of the feedback that we've received and that we've got from the public meetings and from our surveys on line, we'll be working with the consultant team to develop a preferred scenario, uh, with the final recommendations coming this summer and we expect to bring a plan to you this summer, uh, for your consideration. I would say the earliest that the community could see any changes would be fall of 2020, but that... seems like a really lofty goal. Speaking of lofty goals, that might be a stretch. There's a lot that would have to go into, even implementing some of these pieces, and it just ... it might be more realistic to think 2021, but um, but ... we're not ....we're not countin' it out yet. So we're still optimistic. And then of course depending on what those priorities are that we identify, uh, implementation could ultimately be phased. So it just....it's really going to depend on what we determine at the end of the day is the right way forward, and what we can do, and uh, how .... how funding aligns with all those things. So thank you for being so patient. I appreciate it. Let me know, uh, if there's any questions I can answer for you. Salih/ Uh, I really, you know, I'm very glad that you are at this step. This is really moving forward and .... very happy to see this like moving. Um, my question is, just remind me how many language you use for the survey? Nagle -Gamin/ So, for ...for the survey, so the onboard survey, we had a print-out that we handed out that was in English and Spanish. For the online surveys, they're Google Translate This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 20 translatable. So it was, uh, you could provide feedback, um, you could review using the Google Translate option in ... any of a hundred languages, is my understanding. Salih/ But why don't have Arabic language when you know that you have a big community who speak Arabic in this community, and all of them, most of them, I can't say 99%, they use, uh.... you know, the .... the pass to go to Kirkwood Community College and do this, and by the way, I don't .... how many .... how many pages is survey? Nagle -Gamin/ The survey .... this round of the survey is long. The pages ... is long, because we offer an opportunity, uh (both talking) Salih/ No, the first one, the one that (both talking) Nagle -Gamin/ The first one, oh goodness, I don't remember. Maybe .... 10 pages, because it's printing off a web form, so there's a lot of space in between them, but the actual content, I would say, is probably ...a couple pages long, two, three. Sort of a multiple choice(both talking) Salih/ Because this is really not .... like a lot money to translate those kind of document. We ... we translate.... one hour of translation is cost $25 .... and I don't know why the City is not doing that. If we wanna include everyone. I ... I ask you before, I guess long time ago, I said we (unable to understand) meeting at the County, and I said we should include some kind of language, Arabic language, Spanish language, and I said if you need.....like people who can translate, we have, and I guess this, you know, kind of study have a lot of budget into it and I thinks that you can include the survey. Now we are missing really people who don't speak English and they ride the bus. And this is not fair, and I (mumbled) somebody else told me that when they went to this kind of meeting, those people wasn't there. Because I don't know, and you are not providing translation. We talked about this a lot. I don't know why the City's not moving forward on that. But this is something that you need to like keep in mind on it. Right now those three senarios you know, it is very important for those people to choose one of them and now you are really far away in the process. I don't know how you can include those people right now. But my recommendation is to reach out to those people. Nagle -Gamin/ Absolutely! We did have, um, if I can.....if I may respond, we did have, um, instructions for using Google Translate for our first round of public outreach on the website. So .... we did, we did put some posters up for this round of public, um, for this round of public input for transit study. We did have flyers on the buses in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French.....and there was one more that's escaping me right now. So ....so yes, while it's .... it's much.....it proved to be very difficult to translate in a time sense to individually translate each one of those documents that were online for our surveys, but we were hoping to rely on the use of Google Translate, which sort of does it automatically. Salih/ That doesn't make sense for Arabic. Because Arabic is from left to right. It can make sense for Spanish. Uh, it can make sense for other language, but for Arabic, because This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 21 Arabic is like from right to the left. It really mix up the word and you cannot do it, and I guess City need to spend money for that! There is people here, professional on translating document. If you don't know them I can show it to you. You know, or I can give you the contact information. We at the Center for Worker Justice, we do that. We pay them money so they can translate document for us and I think the City better do that, if that organization can do it. Those people are taxpayer. They need to be included, and I guess if they are paying taxes we can spend little bit money so we can reach out to them. Teague/ I don't know, I wanted to at least make some comments on the study. This is very (laughs) uh, lofty (laughs) to say the least. Very, um, a lot of the things that you've mentioned, um, were some of the things that I didn't even think was a part of the study. So I do appreciate that. I was happy to hear about the 11 corridors with 15 -minute, uh, service during the day. And 30 at night. Um .... just in theory initially that makes a lot of sense tome. Um .... one of the things that I'm hopin', and I .... and I think, um .... urn.... Maz, do bring up a important, you know, concern is, um .... along the way, you know, she mentioned, you know, individuals that were potentially excluded because of language. One of the things that .... is.....that I kinda zone in on is just, um, what .... what is somethin' in the study that I really wanna make sure is kind of like central, uh, to staff's knowledge and to,uh, even our consultant's, uh, knowledge, and so that's somethin' that I do think that the Council, uh, really should be considerin', if there is a hot topic item that you really want to see a part of this transit study, or you really want, um, maybe there's somethin' that hasn't been mentioned, that you want to talk about, um, that you kinda make sure that it's in the mix, and on the, urn .... that staff is aware, so that our consultants could at least navigate that, um, on some level. Now of course individual Councilors, you know, there's somethin' to be said about that, except, um, I do believe that we don't wanna come to, um, on the study as bein' presented this summer and then there's a whole new thought process, that kinda, um, either the full Council get .... get onboard with or we're having, um, individuals kinda, you know, um.....present a new, uh, item that might be of interest to navigate. Nevertheless, uh, I'm very pleased to hear, um, the public engagement, the transit riders, um, we're also, you know, bein' on the bus, engagin' with the transit riders. Um, I think that's positive. I was really impressed that the staff was actually a part of this, cause sometimes I think, um, we might, um, rely on consultants, you know, to give us data, um, and .... and they do great from statistical data, but this was actually including the staff, and so I just appreciated that aspect as well. Um, one of the things that I saw, and it was at the bottom, and of course, um, it...it kind of hurt my heart a little bit, where it talked about, um .... improve access to stops, and so when I hear the word `access' I think of ADA and so of all that list, ADA was at the bottom, and so, um, that's somethin' that I think that, and I don't know, who, you know, who took the polls, but I think that ADA is somethin' that we must plan for, and so .... that's my comments. Nagle -Gamin/ Any other comments? Thomas/ One .... one question I have is, you know, the .... the goal of the increased ridership, doubling in 10 years. Is .... is that being tracked, and the alternatives, and .... you know, all the thinking that's going into how we revise the system? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 22 Nagle -Gamin/ Yes. I would say one of the explicit goals is to create, uh, a system that has the service levels that will enable a doubling of our ridership. Another factor, so ... yes, so increasing frequency is .... is a big piece of that, um, that's a .... it's a clear winner in terms of improving, uh, and increasing ridership levels. But also, um, zero fare is another, um, way that communities across the country are really taking a hard look, um, at reevaluating their transit systems, and the preliminary estimates we're seeing from communities who have transitioned in the last 10 years, or transitioning now is we could expect 40 to 60 to 70% ridership increases, and sometimes it's pretty .... it's usually pretty quick. Um, there's a quick, um, increase when .... when the fares are eliminated and then there's.... there's been a steady increase in the data I've seen. Um, so I think those two things, and providing the service at the right locations is also another piece of it. So it's that, uh, market analysis that we did is not just telling us where our transit riders are at now, but also where our potential transit riders are at and providing the right level of service, uh, at the right places, um .... would also go a long way towards helping us reach that goal. Thomas/ Is it, yeah I mean .... we're not spread out over the 25 -square miles of Iowa City evenly, so .... I mean there's... there are inherent advantages to try to ... in my mind, improve service where you have the higher densities. You know, so it's .... it's, and then also projected growth. You know, we had a presentation by staff recently about where can we anticipate, um ... at least potentially, where .... where within the current limits of Iowa City now can we expect to see growth, and at what levels, and I ... I was astonished to hear that over, I think, 50% of our potential growth within the city limits is within the Riverfront Crossings area. So I mean in terms of looking ahead, the way in which our population is distributed in Iowa City could change dramatically. So how that might be reflected in... at least our understanding of our mobility options, of which transit is one of them. Nagle-Ganun/ Right. I .... I think to that point specifically, you see an increased level of service on Gilbert Street. Thomas/ Uh huh. Nagle-Gamm/ Um, specifically to help cant' that forecasted growth, um, from Riverfront Crossings District into the downtown. Thomas/ Uh huh. Nagle-Gamm/ So you'll see that theme, um, throughout. Thomas/ Okay. Fruin/ Just say real quick as we wrap this up, um, as you start to plan ahead for your deliberations on this, this is probably one of those very rare items that will require, uh, a special meeting of Council. We'll see how it all comes to ... to .... to be at the end, but I don't think this is the type of item that you would put on an agenda, um, and .... and ask folks to come and, you know, wait an hour or two for that agenda item to be called. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 23 You're probably going to look at a special work session, uh, maybe two, uh, to be able to fully receive the report, allow the public to receive the report, and then I fully expect there will be a lot of public comment on this. Um, and probably a lot of emotion behind that public comment. So we'll have to get into that ... that as the report wraps up, but um, as we look into summer and fall, just know that we may need, um, some special meetings, uh, when .... I'd say when the full Council's here, to ... to be able to, um, fully consider that and take that public input. Teague/ Anything else? Weiner/ With respect to languages, um, I ... I think there are ways to .... to approach it even now, which could include reaching out to certain community.... community leaders or community groups, uh, the .... the Sudanese community, the ... the Congolese community, others, if we believe, if we have reason to believe that they've, uh, been in particular under -represented and they are probably heavy users of the community. I think there are also ways to ameliorate that. Salib/ I can help you on that for those communities if you want to. Nagle -Gamin/ Thank you! Clarification of Agenda Items: Teague/ Great. Thank you so much! Yes! All right, let's move on to clarification of agenda items. Thomas/ I have notes here about, um .... Item .... 9.h. and 91, which are the .... parking restrictions in, um, on Raven Street and Elmridge, uh, had some questions about that. So I don't know if perhaps pulling them from the consent calendar so we could.... discuss them separately? Teague/ We can certainly do that. Is there anything you want to mention now? Thomas/ Well I .... I'm .... concerned with the process (mumbled) that was taken in terms of.... outreach and engagement with those residents on those two streets, and .... um..... understanding better what that .... what that process was. Taylor/ We certainly received a lot of, um, info .... emails from .... from residents, so I think it would be logical to pull it and discuss it. Teague/ And that would be 9.g. and 9 .... wait. Thomas/ (several talking) H and I. Teague/ H and I. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 24 Salih/ (unable to understand) I will be recuse myself from Item #14. (mumbled) Center for Worker Justice is one of the (mumbled) Teague/ Okay. Any other items? I did just wanna mention, um, not to get into any discussion on Item l l.c., but just 12 E. Court Street. I warm just mention to the Councilors that, um, you may have received, um, four.... potential, um, amendments to the resolution before you, so this might be your first time kinda seein' the language, just to look over it, see if there's any concerns with the language. We will navigate that in our meeting, but I just at least wanted to mention that, um .... before we go into the meetin', but of course discussions on any of this, I really think we should wait for the public, um, so that they can hear it as well. Salih/ Sure! Information Packet Discussion [February 6, February 13: Teague/ All right! Seein' there is nothin' else on .... the formal agenda, um, info packet for February 6`". Mims/ I'll just mention IP3, the budget, um, compliance document. There's a lot of, if you take a few minutes even just to skim through that, there's a lot of information there. Um... you know, just property valuations, largest property tax payers, etc., um, just.... there's a lot of really good statistics in there, I think especially if you go back .... I don't know... how long have we been doing this, Geoff? Have we .... has this been a long time, annual thing? Fruin/ I don't know. I'd have to defer to the Finance staff (laughter) Bockenstedt/ We started that when we adopted the new debt, uh, management policy. Mims/ Okay. Bockenstedt/ Guessin' it was about four years ago maybe. Mims/ Yeah, thanks, Dennis, but I think if you go back and look at it annually, and just kinda look at `em side by side and do some comparison, it just gives you a good idea of how some of these statistics change in terms of, you know, our valuations and, you know, our gross numbers in terms of property taxes, etc., so .... definitely worth spending a little time on. Teague/ All right, moving on to IP .... for February 13a'. Mims/ Just a reminder, IP6. Is the whole Council involved in that meeting tomorrow? Fruin/ Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020. Page 25 Mims/ Okay, that's what I thought. (mumbled) so the ... with the School District on the form based code. Just a reminder to everybody. Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees: Teague/ Anything else from IP? February 13'? All right! Movin' on to Council updates, on assignment.... on assigned boards, commissions, and committees, and if I am correct, we're gonna start with Councilor Bergus today! Bergus/ All right, well, uh, you know I serve on the board for the UNESCO City of Literature, and um, the One Book, Two Book Festival is happening this weekend. There is a banquet recognizing student authors on Friday evening, and then festivities all day Saturday, and then additional, um, student authors speaking on Sunday at Macbride Auditorium. So .... um, definitely check out the City of Literature's website for the schedule of that, but that .... that I think was the majority of what we've covered in our last meeting. Um .... and also, uh, the .... serve on the ICAD board and we have the, um, State of the Schools informational session on the 27th at the Englert. Um, which is just an update for the entire community. Any... any member of the public is welcome to attend that. Thomas/ Nothing for me. Mims/ Nothing for me either. Salih/ Yeah, nothing for me. Haven't met. Taylor/ Nothing for me. Weiner/ I sat in on a meeting of the Police Community Review Board, release the portion of it that I could sit in on before they went into executive session, just to have a chance to meet the people and introduce myself as the liaison. (mumbled) Teague/ All right! And I don't, there's nothin' for me, except I will be part of the One Book, Two Book on ... on Sunday, and so lookin' forward to that opportunity, so ... (both talking) Yeah! If there's nothin' else then we will see you at 7:00! Yes! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 18, 2020.