Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Transportation Advisory Commission - 08/23/1993 (2) f Th TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES August,23, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr.Barry PiRinger,Chairperson,called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the July 26, 1993 meeting were approved by the Committee without any.changes. III. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT . Mr. Pillinger introduced SC Thomas Sidel who has been designated by the Naval Air Station to replace LCDR Michael Williams. SC Sidel's appointment has not yet been confirmed by the City Council as of this meeting,therefore,he will not be a voting member at this time. Because of the nature of the discussion items on the agenda,the Chairman's Report was waived. IV. CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT (Mr.David Seiler was delayed in an interview with the media and not present at the beginning of the meeting. Mr.Pillinger reported that they would pass receiving Mr. Seiler's report at this time.) V. TRAFFIC FATALITY REPORT(Attachment"A") Fatalities: Captain Byrd reported on traffic fatalities during the last month. She summarizedthe details of each of the accidents. Captain Byrd mentioned that to date, the City has suffered 792 DWI's,which isan eight percent increase over last year at this time. VI. MONTHLY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE REPORT(Attachment"B"including Quarterly Severity Index Report) • In Mr. Seiler's absence, Mr. Pillinger briefly went over the subject reports pointing out thatthe. committee is keeping track of the zones/areas with the highest accident rate. (Before proceeding further,Mr.Pillinger asked if there were any members of the audience present who wished to address the committee regarding the prohibition of jogging,bicycling events on the Harbor Ship Channel Bridge discussion item. No one from audience responded. All audience members present were in attendance or the agenda item regarding the petitioned barrier across Everhart Road.) VII. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Continued discussion on prohibition of ioming,bicvclina events,etc.on Harbor Shin Channel Bridge (Attachment "C'). Mr. Pillinger updatedthe committee on the changes that were .- requested in July. Mr: Seiler stated thathis point of view as City Traffic Engineerhas,not changed since the last meeting. Options that were presented to the Committee during the- last meeting were again examined by staff. Mr. Seiler stated that although there have been.. no traffic mishaps up to this time,these events are potentially unsafe,require considerable staff planning time (at the same time emphasizing that the City typically has no problem -1- dedicating staff time to a worthwhile community project), and it is not feasible for detours to occur using Navigation Boulevard the Tule Lake Bridge. The Ship Channel Bridge is a very symbolic feature and offers a magnificent and panoramic view of the bayfront and surrounding areas. Therefore,the Staff can recognize the interest and value for usage of the Ship Channel Bridge for special events. Nonetheless, this facility is first and foremost a controlled excess freeway. Significant traffic is carried by the Ship Channel Bridge Causeway in excess of 50 -60,000 vehicles a day. Because of the City's limited street infrastructures for this area, traffic cannot be easily detoured off of the Ship Channel Bridge. There is an appeal process which is further identified in the "Special Events Ordinance"proposal by which the City Council can make decisions if the interest is there to repeal existing ordinances for any particular situation on the bridge to allow the events to occur. Mr. Pillinger noted that this would be voted on further down the agenda;and floor was open for questions from the committee or audience. Mr. Pillinger then stated that the next agenda item is a Public Meeting to discuss the Everhart Road at Center Drive Barrier for the committee to consider a staff proposal in response to resident petitions. Mr. Seiler addressed the floor stating the Staffs recommendation of a temporary traffic barrier on Everhart between Alameda and Center-- either near Center Drive or at the rear of the Town and Country Shopping Center. Mr. Seiler followed with a brief explanation of the reference drawings and the comments from the Police,Fire,EMS.and other City departments concerning their point of view regarding the placement of the traffic barrier,and that they all agreed that it would not adversely affect response time for emergency vehicles in the proposed area. The Planning Department also concurs with the Staff's recommendation. Traffic volumes on the adjacent residential streets are very different and significantly lower; Santa Fe,Alameda,Doddridge and Roberts have the capability to absorb the additional traffic flow very easily that would be diverted off.of Aberdeen. Another option presented was a one-way street on Aberdeen, however, Staff found these create more problems that they solve and is hard to enforce in a residential areas. Mr. Seiler also presented longer range options of realigning Everhart directly into Santa Fe Street and improvements to Robert Drive between Alameda and Ocean Drive. Mr. Seiler concluded that Staff recommends temporary placement of traffic barrier across Everhart Road at the rear of the Town and Country Shopping Center,and Staffs opposition to a barrier placed across Everhart near Center Drive,as petitioned. Mr.Hecht inquired is traffic was balanced in either direction;Mr.Seiler responded that there is more traffic from Santa Fe towards Alameda than from Alameda to Santa Fe. Mr.Beggs inquired as to why the staff suggests placing the barrier behind the shopping center. Mr. Seiler explained that a barrier placed closer to Center would result in cut-through traffic on Junior Terrace and Estate Streets to Robert Drive. Mr. Hecht inquired about the traffic volume traveling North on Everhart--is most of the traffic turning left or right off Everhart and can Roberts handle the overflow? Mr. Seiler responded that most traffic turns left (north) onto Alameda and that in its present state Robert Drive can handle the traffic increase. Mr. Seiler then presented a slide presentation of the area. The floor was opened to public response. Following are the statements presented to the. Committee from the audience members: John Garcia,306 Aberdeen Avenue,shared his ideas for the support of the original proposal that being the barrier at Center. He would like everyone to consider the fact that right turns are more easily to negotiate than left turns. A barrier at Center would blockage any traffic. coming from Santa Fe;therefore,those folks taking shortcuts to Robert Drive if the barrier was behind Town&Country Shopping Center would find it a little bit more difficult. If you -2- • put the barrier behind Town&Country,they can make right turns onto Robert Drive. If you put the barrier at Center,then a left-turn onto Robert that being the flow of traffic from Alameda would be a lot harder to negotiate. The problem,as being a resident of Aberdeen, is that in making the right turn onto Robert Drive without a light,just a stop sign, at the peak traffic hour is very difficult. That is why we have the 1200 cars flowing through Aberdeen Avenue. Gene Carter,4221 Estate Drive,stated he wasn't either for or against the barrier,but if the barrier is put up,he is certainly against where it is proposed by the petition. I would like to see it put behind Town& Country Shopping Center because if it is put down where it was proposed in petition,then Estate Drive would be just a race track. Henry Norvell,4233 Clinton,appreciated Mr.Seiler's recommendation as a temporary barrier behind Town & Country Shopping Center. At least,then the travelling public would have to make the decision of where they are going to go, but it would relieve the problem ofall the residential areas that are involved. He certainly would recommend eliminating any thought of a barrier at Aberdeen,Estate or Clinton or anything like that because that would simply transfer the problem of the traveling public, as well as the residents,if we detoured cars through that area. The City has an 11 x 11 storm sewer box that was built in the 50s that backs to Ocean Drive or to the bay and the route through Santa Fe would certainly be appropriate. He realizes that the top of that box is not up to the strength that it would require the heavy street but it could be beefed up for traffic so that it would be suitable for a straight, direct roadway from Everhart right on through to Santa Fe. As an alternate to that, and possibly a better solution although a little more long ranged would be a smooth curve behind Town&Country Shopping Center to tie in to Robert Drive,near the cemetery so that the traveling public would have an opportunity to go to Ocean Drive without the risks and hazards that they already face on the sharp S-curve on Robert Drive and also on the double turn on Aberdeen. He believes the City should consider that as the select route for the future, but in the meantime, if we must do anything, put the barrier behind Town & Country on Everhart. Better than that possibly is nothing done until we can get the permanent solution. Ruth Gill, 245 Circle Drive,stated she was one of the problem drivers that uses Aberdeen every day, sometimes several times a day. She noticed that most of the people were wage earners who go to and from work and might use this route twice a day. She is a housewife who does the shopping,banking,running errands for the household and she uses this route to get to other areas of the city. She has to travel to Everhart from Circle Drive,between Santa Fe and Ocean Drive, over to Staples or Alameda or Everhart to do her errands. Consequently,she uses Aberdeen which seemed to her when she moved into Circle Drive the logical extension of Everhart. The City has a proposed,perhaps future,extension of Everhart that skirts Aberdeen which she believes is a good idea. The City might have to eliminate those two lots that come out into Lamar Park but to her,that would be the logical solution, otherwise, she is going to have to use Barracuda to get through to Staples. Barracuda is another residential area or she will be using Robert Drive which will have increased traffic because of this closure. There is traffic that is turning out of, and into HEB parking and coming out of on the right Town & Country Shopping Center parking lot or ahead at Alameda with people coming forward,or turning right or left. There is quite a bit of traffic to deal with if you are trying to get onto Alameda from Robert Drive on the Ocean Drive side. The only solution to her seems to be the building of an extension of Everhart. Joe Sheinberg,249 Circle Drive,stated he has lived here for 38 years and has been travelling on Aberdeen and also Robert Drive. hi the 38 years,he hasn't seen anything changed on -3- • } ' I Robert Drive which he always thought should be widened. He agrees with Ms. Gill about the extension of Everhart,not just to Santa Fe,but all the way to Ocean Drive is the solution because the people who are using Aberdeen are not trying to get to Santa Fe but to Ocean Drive so they can go downtown to work and back again so they can go home on Everhart. Everhart is one of our major feeders and therefore, he believes the solution is to extend Everhart all the way to Ocean Drive and also to improve Robert Drive. (Before the next audience member spoke, Mr. Pillinger pointed out that the Committee is not making any recommendations here as to which alternate route will ever be developed, whether it will be Robert Drive that will be improved or Everhart that will be extended through the park. Either one of those alternatives will go through the normal city channels of budgeting, demand, etc. and are probably a few years away. What the Committee is considering, is whether or not to erect a temporary barrier at Everhart. Mr. Pillinger understands the audience members feeling as to what the long range,ultimate solutions are to be,but the Committee is not here to vote on what the long range solutions should be.) Jim McNorton, 322 Aberdeen, stated that they have put up with this for 35 years and he would like to see some relief,and he would like to see it in his lifetime. He would agree with either one of the barricades. Michael White,4217 Center,stated that he would like to see the petition barricade be placed where we requested at Center and Aberdeen instead of behind the shopping center. He feels that if the barricade is placed behind the shopping center all you having done is for traffic coming off of Aberdeen,crossing Center and increase the traffic flow on Junior Terrace and Estate Drive to get back over to Robert to get out to Alameda. If the barricade is put at Center and Aberdeen,this will force the traffic to go to Robert Drive or to Doddridge to get over to Alameda instead of going through the neighborhood. Eventually,the people that use Everhart to get to Ocean Drive via Santa Fe or Aberdeen will find another route or passage. Phillip Stephens,321 Circle Drive,stated that he was in favor of a barricade at either/or both locations. He would like to see the traffic through there stopped. Danca Gates, 321 Circle Drive, stated she was in favor of the proposed barrier. She also stated actually she would be in favor of Mr.Pillinger's idea of having a barrier at each end. She commented that this was a double-sided sword. If you place the barrier at one end,then you will see the traffic come through the Junior Terrace,Estate and Clinton streets going one way. If you place the barrier at the other end,you will still see that traffic diverted through that subdivision. She understands the difficulty of the process but she is in favor of seeing the traffic end or some way slowed down in our area. She has seen people speeding down Circle Drive to avoid going through Aberdeen because there is too much traffic on Aberdeen so they drive down Circle Drive. Miles Johnson, 252 Circle Drive, just across Santa.Fe, across from the problem street Aberdeen. He uses Aberdeen twice a day,as does his wife. He is going to be entirely selfish. in this matter,barricading this street would inconvenience him considerably. This street has been open since he moved on Circle Drive. The street was open,it was a thru street when those people brought their homes there. It's always been that way since 1969. The one house at the corner, at Center and Aberdeen,and when you are going towards Santa Fe.on Everhart,your headlights drive right into their house and that is indeed a problem. However, that corner and that street were there when those people brought that house. When we are talking about barriers we are talking about closing this street. Is this what the barrier will do, -4- close the street? Mr. Seiler explained that there would be no closing or abandoning of the right of way, but there would be a physical obstruction across the street to prevent any passage from occurring. Mr.Johnson stated that we are talking about diverting all this traffic to Robert Drive,he reminded committee that Robert Drive has numerous residents on it. It is narrower than Aberdeen. It has bar ditches along there. If more traffic is diverted to Robert and motorists are made to turn left from Robert on Santa Fe,going towards Ocean Drive,the signals at that intersection are simply a warning signal. It's a dead end,practically a dead end. There is an awkward turn into the cemetery and it is routine a minor traffic jam there every morning and afternoon with people going into the cemetery or trying to make that left turn. You have in the neighborhood of 6,000 on Robert now and you are proposing to put another 3,000 on it. Robert has a worse S-curve than Aberdeen. You are proposing to add 50% to its traffic load, plus people coming from out of town, coming from South Staples direction on Everhart and get to Alameda,they will have to turn right, go through a congested area from Town&Country Shopping Center,then a left turn at a stop light onto . Robert..you talking about suddenly increasing that to 1800 and by doing this, you-are increasingyour traffic problem there. As mentioned by Ms.Gill,there are motorists traveling by HEB, so the City would be compounding the traffic problem on Robert, plus "you are inconveniencing me." Roy Claus,4221 Clinton Drive,stated he was one of the people on map whowould in a red dot. He favors having the barricade up there at Town&Country Shopping Center as being the most logical, short-term and cheapest solution. Other than that,what Mr. Nowell was proposing,as an engineer,he may have maybe a minor grasp of some of the difficulties that Mr. Seiler is facing in trying to get a handle on this. Trying to straighten that out is going to be a genuine chocolate mess no matter which way you jump. Roberts Drive curve needs to be fixed - Vida Roll, 329 Aberdeen;stated she lives at one of the choice houses on that wonderful curve. She stated they didn't know what they would do for excitement if the city blocked off the street. Has lived there since 1958 and the street was open then,it was closed in 1957,her children were 3 and 5 when she moved there and Aberdeen was just an average residential street then but when Town&Country Shopping Center opened up,it became a thoroughfare and the numbers really did increase after that. - Mr. Plunger asked if there were any more comments from the audience because once discussions started they will not interrupt to hear more comments from the audience. Mr. Pillinger also commented to the audience that any action that the committee is going to take will be advisory in nature to the City Council. This is an advisory board to the City Council. You.will have the opportunity to be heard again before the City Council if you don't like what"they are.doing. Mr. Braeslton commented that erecting a barricade at either place is an effective way to knock down the traffic count. If barricade were there,he would use another way the next time. Mr.Braeslton believes that a barricade will not affect the rest of the subdivision as far as traffic count. Mr. Plunger questioned Staff if putting a barricade in both locations were ever a consideration. Mr. Seiler responded that it was not a consideration at both locations. Mr Seiler stated that there is importance to trying to keep traffic disruption to a minimum for those residents that live within the subdivision. Mr. Seiler wanted to be on recordas understanding the Staff does not presume that all the traffic using Aberdeen and Everhart is strictly cut-thru traffic. The Staff realizes full well that,it does not know how much,but -5- a certain nominal amount of that traffic is by residents living in the subdivision. Mr. DeVille asked if the committee is to assume that the 1800 northbound cars that use Aberdeen will be diverted to Robert Drive or what percentage are we looking at. Mr.Seiler answered that the City does not know what exactly traffic is going to do, we feel more strongly than just guessing that the majority of traffic diverted off of Everhart Road would turn,northbound onto Alameda going towards Doddridge. This is based on observations that have been made at the intersection of Aberdeen and Santa Fe where traffic is going from there. The majority of traffic is turning left and going towards Doddridge. Certain amount of traffic,not a majority,is continuing on Aberdeen between Santa Fe and Ocean Drive. In Mr.Seiler's opinion,the 1800 vehicles per day that would be impacted from the direction of Everhart/Alameda,will primarily travel in the direction of Doddridge, north on Alameda. Mr. Seiler's believes no more than 20-25%would turn towards Robert Drive,because that is heading in the opposite direction where the majority of traffic is wanting to go. Even though a detour towards Robert would not be that much of detour,traffic does not normally like to travel out of its way to go back the other direction. Mr.Hecht commented that those people turning off Everhart to Alameda towards Doddridge will not make it to Doddridge. but will turn off on Barracuda,Miramar Place,Cannel Parkway,one of those streets that will go into Ocean View Drive. Mr. Seiler stated some filtration that will occur on those streets with Barracuda mentioned more than others,as it relates to Ocean View on the east side of Santa Fe. Ocean View has a fairly substantially reverse-curve,it is also stop sign controlled at Ocean Drive. The side streets that run between Santa Feand Alameda are stop sign controlled midway between Santa Fe and Alameda. Mr. Pillinger questioned if any discussion held regarding Cannel Parkway going through instead of Everhart over to Santa Fe. Mr. Seiler responded that the Staff is drawing up a number of different alternatives at this point,we are not discounting anything. Mr. Brandrup questioned that with a barricade at either direction the City would be in a "taking" situation, according to the City attorney. Mr. Seiler stated that the Legal Department basically indicated that the chances of this barrier being taken as a"taking"issue would be substantially minimized if the barrier was placed across Everhart at the rear.of Town & Country Shopping Center. The term "taking"was explained as costing youyouur property and therefore you have a claim back to the City for having closed the street,cutting off access to your property by virtue of their action so you have a claim for having lost the value of their property. Mr.Pillinger stated that the barricade at Town&Country effectively takes care of the traffic that is trying to get to Santa Fe,but doesn't effectively take care of traffic coming from Santa Fe. Mr.Pillinger expressed concern about not dealing with traffic in other direction,in spite of posting signs at the entrance to Aberdeen off of Santa Fe indicating no thru street,traffic will still come down Aberdeen,Circle and get to Junior Terrace,see barricade and then turn on Junior Terrace to go to Robert Drive,effectively putting more traffic on Robert,lessening the traffic on Aberdeen by about 50%. Mr. Pillinger feels the barricade is only a partial answer to the solution. Mr.Pillinger believes another barrier at the proposed location of the petition which would close that street from both ends.. Mr. Seiler commented on barriers at both ends: 1) traffic would not necessarily find it still convenient to get from the direction of Santa Fe to Alameda by using Aberdeen,Center,and Everhart if the barrier were placed at Town & Country Shopping Center;2) there is value. -6- • • to maintaining as few access controls within a residential neighborhood as possible. Two barriers would certainly eliminate the possibilities mentioned by Mr. Pillinger,but it would more drastically inconvenience residents in subdivision. The City does not want to stop all traffic on Aberdeen,but simply to minimize through traffic. Mr.Plunger stated that the traffic lights will need to be set properly so that it can handle the extra traffic to eliminate the possibility of stacking traffic and blocking driveways coming out of HEB and Town& Country Shopping Center. Mr. Pillinger questioned the need for putting signs at Aberdeen and Circle stating no-thru traffic. Mr.Seiler stated that the primary signage will be at the Alameda/Everhart and Santa Fe/Aberdeen intersection. The exact location and wording on signage has not been worked out yet. Mr.Braselton asked if the Committee's options were as follows: 1) Petitioner's location,2) Staff's location,3) do nothing or 4) do both. Mr.Pillinger stated that the temporary closure location was the Staff's recommendation. Mr.DeVille made the motion to accept the recommendation for placement of the temporary barrier across Everhart Road at the rear of Town&Country Shopping Center as proposed by City Staff. Mr.Braselton seconded the motion. Vote was three for motion,four against motion. Motion failed. Mr. Pillinger asked for any further discussion or does Committee wish to let the recommendation go the City Council without this Committee's recommendation. Without further discussion, the Committee would be opposed to the Staff's recommendation for closing off traffic to that subdivision. Mr. Beggs made a motion to place a temporary barrier at the location (near Center) as petitioned. Mr. Routh seconded the motion. Vote was two for Mr. Beggs' motion, five against motion. Motion failed. Mr. Plunger moved, as chairman, for the placement of.two barriers, one as originally proposed by City staff and an additional barrier at location of the original petition. Mr. Braselton seconded the motion. Vote was taken, motion failed to receive majority of members Mr. Brandrup recommended a vote on reconsidering the original Staff recommendation which failed on the first go around. Mr. Beggs made the motion to reconsider the Staff's original recommendation of one barrier at the rear of the Town&Country Shopping Center. Mr.Brandrup seconded the motion. Vote was taken,motion carried by vote of 5 to 2. B. Proposed revisions to Code of Ordinances Section 49-15 (Temporary Closure of Streets) (Attachment"E"). Mr. Plunger briefly explained Mr. Seiler's letter from the last meeting which addressed some of the Committee's concerns;namely,the Harbor Bridge closure-and the costs/charges on the Special Events. The draft ordinance has been revised to reflect our concerns for these areas. Mr.Seiler stated items addressed in the draft ordinance:1)location of the proposed events would be prohibited;2) traffic control and 3) gross receipts. Mr. Pillinger questioned the statement on Page 3A regarding the ...all events shall be open. to the public and free to all spectators... Does this include Bayfest? Mr. Seiler stated that . the Bayfest event is an example of a separate contract/agreement between the City of Corpus -7- Christi and Bayfest,Inc. If the Committee desires,this wording can be changed to ...unless special agreement between City Council and special events organizers,event shall be free to spectators... Mr. Hecht questioned the gross receipts section stating that it was still vague to him. Mr. Hecht doesn't believe it cleared up the question the Committee had about sponsors, special donations. Mr.Seiler stated that a change to this section has been included to specify some L of the exclusions. (At this time,Mr. Pillinger asked for audience members to address the Committee.) Gretchen Arnold-Wood wanted to address the various area events that take place on Harbor Bridge. Ms.Wood wanted to request before a.decision is made on issues like this that input from representatives of these events be contacted and allow their input concerning the various issues (i.e.,safety) to see if there are alternatives instead of just banning the event. Ms. Wood suggested the establishment of a safety committee to review these events. Mr. Pillinger stated that this Committee went on record last month with several suggestions for the staff to review. Mr.Seiler commented that the special event organizers can approach the City Council at any time with what may be extenuating circumstances and request a special permit. The City Council is still the body that would have to consider those requests. Mr. Seiler stated that both he and Chief Garrett's staff looks at all events as to whether they can be handled safely for both participants and spectators. Mr. Pillinger suggested changes in wording for this Section 49-17 specifically addresses the prohibited use of locations for special events. Suggested wording changed to say...the Traffic Engineer after consultation with the appropriate City departments and the Transportation Advisory Committee shall prohibit the use of any proposed location for public events,either as part of the route for the event or solely for the event based on any determination that such proposed location is potentially unsafe,for the participants and/or general public... Strike out by the City Traffic Engineer or Chief of Police in the next to last line. Mr.Seiler commented no opposition to changing the wording of this section. Mr. Braselton made a motion to adopt the ordinance with the changes in wording Mr. Pillinger's suggested. Mr.DeVille seconded the motion. Mr.Pillinger stated motion on floor with language in Section 49-17 changed as stated above. Mr. Hecht stated that without amending the prohibition of bicycles being allowed...this is a mute point. The Committee has not addressed the problem. Mr. Pillinger inserted the wording...the Traffic Engineer after consultation with the appropriate City departments and event organizers, and where appropriate,the Transportation Advisory Committee... Vote was taken,motion carried. Regarding existing City Code of Ordinances Section 11-8 and 53-10,Mr.Brandrup suggested the following wording be added....unless approved as a Special Event under Section 49....Mr. Pillinger reminded Committee that this was not an agenda item, but it was considered in conjunction with Section 49-15. Mr. Seiler commented that Staff would need to take it through the Legal Department and then bring it back before the Committee. There is nothing at this time that has totie Section 11-8 and 53-10 to the Special Events Ordinance. Mr.Brandrup moved to recommend to City Traffic Engineer the amendment of Section 11-8 and 53-10 to add language....unless approved as a Special Event under Section 49,Division 2 as previously authorized by this Committee... Mr. Hecht seconded. Vote was taken, motion carried. - IX. RECOGNITION OF AUDIENCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS -8- None. X. ACTION ON ABSENT MEMBERS FROM JULY 1993 MEETING Mr.Pillinger stated action on this was taken at the last meeting. Regarding this month's meeting,Ms. Joyce Hoist asked to be excused from attending. XI. PREVIOUS CONCERNS None. XII. NEW CONCERNS Mr.Braselton expressed concern about speeding traffic on Quebec Street which is close to the new Ella Barnes Elementary School. Mr.Braselton inquired about putting up signs. Mr.Seiler stated that the school does have reduced speed limits during school hours(15 MPH),but will check specific area that Mr. Braselton mentioned. Mr. Seiler stated that there is a City Code restricting the distance from the school we can establish a reduced school zone speed limit. Mr. Pillinger questioned if the Attorney General or General Land Office have any concerns about the vehicular control plan. Is this on schedule? Mr. Seiler responded that the plan was submitted with General Land Office with an amendment that provided for the City working out an off-street parking plan off Windward Drive to be brought back before the Council within three months. Mr. Seiler stated that any changes made to the plan would be reported to this Committee before going to the City Council. Mr. Hecht questioned if a consultant had been selected for the Southside Study. Mr. Seiler responded that a consultant has been selected to perform the study. Staff will be taking recommendation to City Manager's office and then to the City Council after that. Staff has outlined a four-month study period provided that City Council takes action sometime in September. XIII. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. • MnutesAug -9-