Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-20 Bicycle & Pedestrian_MIN Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission th Thursday, June 20, 2002 Meeting Minutes Roll Call Nutter, Rogers, Beaudoin, Chapman, and Barnes were present. Baxter and Hartzell arrived late. Young, Bretko, and Spear were absent. Call to Order Chapman called the meeting to order at 4:48 p.m. Approval of Minutes Rogers noted that the first paragraph on page 2 should include the following changes, “She also stated that in November, efforts were made to get involving Southern Oregon University, the Wilderness Charter School and the Ashland Community Bike Program involved was considered, but she noted that these efforts were unsuccessful and the program had been postponed with little progress made.” th The minutes of May 16 were approved as amended. Public Forum None present. Review of Existing City Transportation Goals & Policies Harris explained that she intended this item both as an orientation for new members and an update for those who have been on the commission for some time. She stated that she hoped to review the charge of the commission, the goals and policies of the city, and the newly prepared teamwork booklet. Harris suggested that she would like to have everyone present, and she questioned whether it might be better to reschedule this item for a later date. Chapman noted the difficulty in finding a meeting where everyone would be in attendance, and he added that he and Rogers would be absent from the July meeting. Harris stated that she could go through her presentation now, but she pointed out that it was lengthy. She also stated that she thought it was important that Young, who was absent, hear the presentation. After some discussion, it was agreed that Harris would make the presentation and then repeat it in July to be certain that all members had a chance to hear. Harris discussed how the commission was established in the municipal code, as an advocacy group for non-automotive travel, including the specific powers and duties set forth therein. She listed some of these duties as the promotion of safety programs, reviewing bicycle parking in new projects, promoting cycling and walking, and assisting in the implementation of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Harris explained both the Transportation Element and the Comprehensive Plan as long range planning documents intended to meet the land use goals of the city on a twenty year horizon, in accordance with the requirements of Oregon Land Use Law. Harris discussed transportation planning rules to reduce reliance on automobiles and keep cities livable. Harris discussed the city’s Transportation Element, which was updated in 1996, and highlighted the concept of “modal equity.” Harris touched on the five sections of this element and encouraged members to review the goals and policies because of their specificity. Harris noted that streets are seen in Ashland as critical public space, rather than simply as thoroughfares. She also discussed Ashland’s mixed land use zoning and dense residential to lessen the amount of travel needed between destinations. She noted Ashland’s street standards, and pointed to the redesign of Siskiyou Boulevard as a multi-modal transportation corridor. Harris noted five pedestrian and bicycle goals, including increased enforcement and emphasizing environments that encourage multi-modal use. Harris briefly touched on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the bicycle and pedestrian projects contained therein. She discussed the need for a residential density approaching nine units per acre for transit to be successful. She also explained the Transportation System Plan (TSP) as the implementation plan for specific projects. There was discussion of the difficulty of filling the rather unique advocacy role assigned to this commission. Nutter suggested that in his view he is only a citizen and he questioned if that was an acceptable way to look at it. Harris noted that it is important to separate 2002-0620_Bike Min Page 1 of 4 the citizen and public official roles in some instances, such as when providing comment at a public meeting of another body, and she noted the need to be aware of potential conflict of interest issues. She emphasized the need to remove one’s self from a discussion if there was any conflict. Hartzell noted that the presence of a commissioner had been helpful in the various recent charettes, and she suggested that when speaking one can state that they are a commissioner speaking only for himself or herself. Rogers noted that in her speaking engagements, she identifies herself as a commissioner but makes it clear that she is not speaking for the commission. Harris clarified that if one’s position gives them a louder voice it may represent a conflict. There was discussion of conflict of interest and the responsibility of commissioners, and it was suggested that commissioners should use their personal judgement and err on the side of being conservative. Nutter questioned whether commissioners need to be supportive of city decisions with which they disagree. Hartzell suggested that disagreement be expressed in a tactful manner. Beaudoin stated that individual members are going to have individual opinions. Harris noted that the planning commission had agreed that members would not criticize group decisions publicly. There was discussion of the need to be constructive with criticism. Harris suggested that there should be discussion of specific issues as they come up. Teamwork Booklet Harris briefly explained the reasoning behind this booklet, and she added that this booklet is the first of its kind. Nutter asked for clarification of the issue, which had come up previously concerning the commission’s giving money to other organizations. Harris stated that the commission cannot appropriate funds, and she explained that in the past, the commission has supported some events by signing on as co-sponsors. Nutter clarified that giving seed money to an organization the commission agreed with would be difficult. Harris noted that there is a fairness issue, and she explained that requests for funds should be referred to the budget process. Baxter confirmed that the commission could make a recommendation to council and endorse the organization in the RFP process. Hartzell suggested that the commission become more attentive to the full budget process, including what funds are dedicated and where they may be allocated. Plan for Next Month’s Goal Discussion Chapman noted his desire to look at whether the group is on the right track. He also noted that Spear had sent a letter expressing her wish to finish what has been started, specifically the school project and car free challenge. Spear’s letter indicated that she felt that success would require the support of the whole group rather than placing the burden on a few members. Spear’s suggestion was to approach the Lincoln PTO, and if there seems to be no interest the project should be dropped and started anew in the fall. Spear’s letter also indicated her desire to limit the public forum at the beginning of the agenda to five minutes per speaker, with any discussion to be held at the end of the meeting. Rogers presented the grant proposal previously requested and noted that she would remove herself from the discussion. Harris clarified for Beaudoin that the street signs would go up soon and be paid out of this year’s budget, with the commission to pay at least $1000 of the $2000 cost. Harris stated that this leaves $1750 in the budget, not including the lights. Chapman briefly updated Beaudoin on the signage & map issue. Harris confirmed for Nutter that with the $900 light purchase, $850 would remain in the budget. Nutter suggested that he would like to see the commission take on a managerial role to light little fires, with small amounts of money, to encourage student to walk to school, raise community awareness, and promote bike safety. He suggested seeking grants to encourage these sorts of things, and he cited the Bike Swap and the BTA Safety Classes as examples. Baxter concurred with Nutter’s ideas. He added that there is a difficulty in doing projects where the commission is the labor pool. Rogers noted that she would be leaving the commission in August, and she added that she would be absent in July. She stated that she would remain active in the community and would come before the commission from time to time. Rogers suggested that the commission might do well to build ties to other city committees. Chapman noted that he just wants to be able to get from his home to his destination safely. Chapman emphasized that the school project cannot be commission led, and he indicated that now there is an idea of the direction to take. He concurred with Spear’s letter that parents need to be involved in the project at each school 2002-0620_Bike Min Page 2 of 4 Hartzell suggested that the commission could play a number of roles, and she suggested looking for roles to play in particular projects. Beaudoin discussed the safe routes program, noting that he was interested in part because he has children. He questioned whether working to create safe routes would change parental attitudes in a car culture. He added that Ashland’s layout requires that one cross a highway and deal with hills to go anywhere. Rogers noted that many parents have fear issues that prevent them from allowing their children to walk to school. Beaudoin reiterated the difficulty in changing attitudes, and questioned whether paying a contractor would work to this end. Nutter emphasized the need to avoid wasting efforts already made and the need to create positive momentum. Beaudoin agreed, and he stated that he would support anything, even experimentally, to get parents involved. Harris suggested that a decision first needs to be made as to whether all members want to continue with the project. Nutter/Baxter m/s to continue school project/car free challenge. DISCUSSION: Hartzell asked if Nutter meant this as a general project for the full city. Nutter stated that he intended it to be the limited project at Lincoln School as had been discussed previously. Baxter clarified that the group had worked to identify the scope and focus of the program and had previously agreed to begin with Lincoln. Baxter added that the larger issue was identifying the right way to get underway at Lincoln. Baxter went on to state that the real question comes down to what can be done to continue and devote the energy to get the program going, and he stated that he feels the commission should continue with the project. Hartzell noted she would propose addressing all schools at once, and she emphasized that this was more of an issue now given that Lincoln could be closed next year. She asked that addressing the entire city be put back on the table. Rogers explained that the materials will be in place for schools city-wide, and that Lincoln would merely be serving as a pilot program. Rogers emphasized that one program cannot be created and put in place for all schools. Motion withdrawn Chapman stated that all seemed to agree on the desire to move ahead citywide. He suggested that the question to be addressed next month was how to get underway. Harris asked whether the members wanted a formal motion to that effect. Beaudoin asked for clarification of the safe routes program versus the school project; Chapman clarified that the safe routes program is an element of the school program. Harris gave a little background, and noted that Rogers and Chapman had become frustrated with the lack of progress and brought the item back before the group relative to the Lincoln School pilot program. Harris urged answering the specific question of whether members want to continue. Chapman indicated that there seemed to be a consensus that the group wants to move forward to address all schools in some way. Baxter agreed that members support the project and want to continue to devote energy as a commission. Baxter added that going back and revisiting the idea of using Lincoln as a pilot school is valid, but he agreed that there is a consensus to move forward with the project in some way. Group expressed general consensus to continue, and there was agreement to look at how to continue next month. Chapman stated that an ongoing discussion of goals needed to begin next month. Nutter agreed that the goal discussion would be ongoing. Incentives & Enforcement Baxter provided background, and he noted that last month he had presented information on a $7.25 light set. He stated that many members had expressed a preference for LED lights. Beaudoin stated that he had looked at LEDs and they would be priced well beyond this, especially when shipping costs were taken into account. Baxter noted that he had checked and an LED set would be th $9.25 for front and year. Harris pointed out that the commission would need to have these in hand by June 30. Baxter noted that United Bicycle Parts (UBP) had them in stock. Chapman and Nutter agreed that buying from stock would be better as there would be no shipping costs. Harris suggested that the commission determine an amount to spend and leave the details to staff discretion. Nutter noted the environmental issue of replacing batteries and urged commissioners to select LEDs. Chapman concurred and added that strobes would be better. There was general consensus to use $900 to purchase lights from UBP, with discretion left to staff to work out the details of the purchase. Harris also asked for commission approval of using $1000 in commission funds to help pay for signage as previously noted. Nutter/Chapman m/s to approve using $1000 in commission funds to help pay for signage. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 2002-0620_Bike Min Page 3 of 4 Hartzell suggested distributing more of the cyclist’s rights cards provided by Rogers. Nutter suggested that any remaining funds could go to the purchase of more lights. Hartzell asked to look into the cyclist’s rights cards. After discussion, it was agreed give staff discretion to order more lights – with expedited shipping if necessary - using at least half of the $850 funds remaining after the $900 purchase already agreed upon. It was also agreed that any left over funds would go to paying for signage. New Business Harris noted that she had e-mail contact with a specialist in bicycle and pedestrian safety from the State of Oregon, and he was willing stnd to do a walking tour sometime in the July 31 through August 2 date range. Harris added that it would be necessary to have an ODOT representative accompany this group as well. There was general agreement to request this walking tour and to seek as early a date within the given range as possible. Agenda Items for Next Meeting School project; goals; repeat of goals and policies/teamwork booklet presentation; budget update, lights and signs update. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. th Next meeting: 4:30 p.m. on July 18, 2002 2002-0620_Bike Min Page 4 of 4