Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutemail between staff on comments by GouldMalone, Walter From: Dawson, Cindy Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 1:04 PM To: Day, Bryan Cc: Carpenter, Tom; Mann, Bill; Honeywell, Jon; Malone, Walter Subject: RE: Message from KMBT_C654 Bryan — Here are my comments: Ken states that the draft ordinance does not apply Complete Streets requirements to private developers. He is mistaken in that regard, since in section 2 of the ordinance it specifically states that with the provided exceptions, "the city will apply this complete streets policy to all street projects for public streets, regardless of funding source...." (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, Complete Streets policy will apply to City -funded projects and privately -funded (developer funded) projects. There will be no need to provide the additional language Ken mentioned. 2. The needs of adjacent landowners are almost always considered in any development now and immediately adjacent landowners are in most circumstances already given notice of an adjacent project, primarily so they can comment at a public hearing on the project. There may be a few circumstances where that would not be the case, but I think in the vast majority of project developments, notice is already provided. No adjacent landowner, either singly or in concert with others, has a veto over a project, however, and this draft ordinance would not change that fact. Their needs would be a consideration in the development process and I don't see how we could add any further detail as to how, since projects vary widely. 3. Ken states that the written documentation requirement as to exceptions by the director of public works is not a part of section 5. 1 am unclear what Ken is meaning here, because section 5(b) specifically states that "[t]he director of public works shall employ a checklist to document the complete streets analysis on each street project." (Emphasis supplied.) This statement requires a checklist and to document something requires it to be in writing to make the document. The applicable exceptions would be a part of any analysis. 4. There is no need for the draft ordinance to define bicycle lanes since a definition for bicycle lane is already in the Master Street Plan, 5. For all City departments to apply the Complete Streets ordinance to their activities and operations seems exceptionally overbroad and does not make much sense to me. How the Zoo, Finance and IT would do that is not clear to me. 6. Ken seeks the simultaneous adoption of a Complete Streets checklist (along with the adoption of the ordinance), public access to the checklists, and forwarding of the checklist to the Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator. Ken states that the checklist is apparently not a part of the draft ordinance. A checklist is certainly referenced and required by the draft ordinance as noted above. Maybe he means that he wants the City Board to also formally approve a checklist, but it seems to me that the form of the checklist is something that might be repeatedly revised as the City integrates the Complete Streets policy into the various development projects involving streets. The City tries to avoid actions that require going back to the Board for such details, which are primarily handled at the department level. As to public access, the City is subject to the state's Freedom of Information Act, which requires open records, so there is no question but what the checklists for the various projects will be available to the public. (I doubt any exception to the release of information would apply to such documents.) As to the forwarding of the checklists to the Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator, that seems a minor detail that our ordinances do not usually or ever address, but are handled administratively. Cindy From: Day, Bryan Sent: Friday, May 30, 20141:55 PM To: Dawson, Cindy; Honeywell, Jon; Malone, Walter Subject: FW: Message from KMBT—C654 Attached are suggestions from Ken Gould for the proposed Complete Streets policy; I am inclined to ignore them and go with what we have — could you all look this over and give me a couple of written thoughts to what he is suggesting? Thank you From: Chastain, Stacia Sent: Friday, May 30, 201410:35 AM To: Day, Bryan Subject: FW: Message from KMBT_C654 From: co ier littlerock.or [mailta:copier r7littlerock.org] Sent: Friday, May 30, 201411:19 AM To: Chastain, Stacia Subject: Message from KMBT C654 Malone, Walter From: Day, Bryan Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 1:55 PM To: Dawson, Cindy; Honeywell, Jon; Malone, Walter Subject: FW: Message from KMBT_C654 Attachments: SKMBT_C65414053010190.pdf Attached are suggestions from Ken Gould for the proposed Complete Streets policy; I am inclined to ignore them and go with what we have — could you all look this over and give me a couple of written thoughts to what he is suggesting? Thank you From: Chastain, Stacia Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:35 AM To: Day, Bryan Subject: FW: Message from KMBT—C654 From: copier@ iittlerock.o[mailto:copier@littlerock.of-g) Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 11:19 AM To: Chastain, Stacia Subject: Message from KMBT—C654 Members of the City of Little Rock Bicycle Pedestrian Committee, Thanks to Jeremy for forwarding the draft of the Complete Streets ordinance. I was out of town all last week and have just now been able to review the draft. The Complete Streets (CS) policy probably is the most important matter that will come before the Bicycle Friendly Committee (BFCC). The ultimate test of the city's commitment to making LR truly bicycle friendly is whether the city was willing to adopt an effective CS policy/ordinance. In addition to CS being the test of the city's commitment, adoption of an effective CS policy is required to gain League of American Bicyclist's recognition as a Bicycle Friendly Community. Full consideration of the policy is so important that it should be discussed at a scheduled in-person meeting of the BFCC. Since the subject of a Complete Streets policy has been pending before the BFCC and the city since at least June of 2010, and a concrete policy has been before the BFCC and city since May 2, 2012, when the BFCC forwarded to the city for action the CS policy it had unanimously adopted, briefly postponing the date for presentation of the policy to the City Board for the BFCC discussion of the draft should not be a matter of great consequence. The draft presented to the BFCC by Jeremy's recent e-mail contains many excellent provisions that should be components of an exemplary Complete Streets policy and should be adopted as part of Little Rock's CS policy. To make the CS policy as effective as feasible and worthy of the bicycle friendly community city status to which the city aspires, the BFCC should consider recommending to the city incorporation of the following suggestions, most of which have already been considered and adopted as part of the BFCC's CS policy adopted on May 2, 2012. 1, Since nearly all new streets in Little Rock are constructed by private developers rather than the City of Little Rock, the BFCC's May 2, 2012, policy required private developers to provide CS accommodations. At the time of the policy's adoption, the BFCC recognized that application of a CS requirement to private developers would likely precipitate political concern. Apparently that proved to be the case because the draft CS ordinance does not apply CS requirements to private developers. In light of that political reality, I suggest that the CS ordinance include a provision requiring that during the planning stage of a development the city provide information to private developers about the advantages of CS accommodations and urge that private developers incorporate CS accommodations in their developments. 2. Section 3 of the draft CS ordinance makes "the needs of adjaceut landowners" a factor in the determination whether CS infrastructure is "feasible." How are those needs factored into the determination of whether CS accommodations are to be incorporated into an infrastructure project? Must adjacent landowners be given notice of the project? Do the adjacent landowners or some percentage of them have a right to veto the project? Or does the "adjacent landowner" provision have some other meaning? The "needs of adjacent landowners" provision should be clarified. 3. The original CS policy unanimously adopted by the BFCC required that the Director of Public Works' determination that an infrastructure project was to be excepted from the CS requirement be documented in writing, a simple matter of transparency and public accountability. The written documentation requirement is not part of section 5 of the draft CS ordinance and should be reinserted into the section 5 provisions. 4. The second sentence of section 3 of the draft CS ordinance defines "Complete streets infrastructure" as including "bicycle lanes" without definition. The original CS policy adopted by the BFCC specifically defined on -roadway bicycle lanes as: [A] portion of the roadway which has been designated by striping, signing and pavement marking [and physical barriers] for the exclusive use by bicyclists. The following standards shall apply to bicycle lanes: (a) On roadways with no curb and gutter, the on -roadway bicycle lane shall be at least a 4 feet wide paved and marked shoulder lane. (b) On roadways with a curb and gutter, the on -roadway bicycle lane shall be at least a 5 feet wide paved and marked shoulder lane. A specific definition of on -roadway bicycle lanes in the CS ordinance would help to deter confusion and provide a readily ascertainable reference of what is required if bicycle lanes are to be part of a street's CS requirements. 5. The original CS policy adopted by the BFCC specifically required that, "[a]ll departments of the City of Little Rock shall apply this Complete Streets ordinance to their activities and operations, including the review and approval of plans by private developers to construct streets and other facilities to which this Complete Streets ordinance applies." Incorporating a similar provision into the draft CS ordinance would complement and help to insure, as suggested in item no. 1, above, that during the planning stage of a development the city provide information to developers about the advantages of CS accommodations, and that the city urge private developers to incorporate CS accommodations in their developments. 6. The key to making a CS policy effective is the simultaneous adoption of a CS checklist to be completed by the Director of Public Works. The checklist helps to insure that the city's CS decisions are transparent and that the city is accountable for its decisions by requiring that there be written documentation of those decisions. The purpose of the checklist is to document that Complete Streets practices, principles, and elements were considered and implemented where appropriate. The draft CS ordinance simply states that "[t]he director of public works shall employ a checklist to document the complete streets analysis on each street project" but makes no provision for public access to the checklist or that the checklist be forwarded to the Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator. Without completion of a publicly available checklist and its forwarding to the Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator, determination of the extent to which CS accommodations were considered is difficult to impossible. A transparent and effective checklist is an integral and extremely important part of the CS policy. As a result, the CS policy should not be adopted without either simultaneous adoption of a checklist that has been reviewed by the BFCC or an assurance in the CS policy itself that an effective CS checklist will be adopted together with specific provision of a mechanism for assuring that the checklist will be publicly available and forwarded to the Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator. A CS checklist was submitted to the city for its consideration on July 10, 2013. That checklist provided that: "the checklist is to be completed as soon as preliminary project plans are completed or significantly revised for all projects that could in any way impact bicycle and/or pedestrian use, whether or not the proposed project is designed to accommodate either or both modes. Following completion, the checklist is to be retained in the project file and immediately forwarded to the City of Little Rock Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator." Since a CS checklist apparently is not a part of the present draft CS ordinance, language similar to that in the preceding sentence should be incorporated into the CS ordinance to insure transparency and accountability of the CS process.