Receive a presentation on the Sidewalk Maintenance and Gap Infill Program and provide direction to staff.
Item 01: Sidewalk Maintenance & Gap Infill Program
- Thread starter COSM_Admin
- Start date
- Status
JHughson
CoSM Members
On the background slide there is "2013 - Council Directed Implementation of Sidewalk Maintenance & Gap
Infill Program" - is this a document? If so, please provide a copy. In searching our website, I find a link to a GIP map, but I'm looking for information such as HOW areas are prioritized (policy) for sidewalks.
Starting in 2013, is there a document that stated how often we would ask the public for info?
I see lots of good stuff we have NOW - I'm looking for old information.
Infill Program" - is this a document? If so, please provide a copy. In searching our website, I find a link to a GIP map, but I'm looking for information such as HOW areas are prioritized (policy) for sidewalks.
Starting in 2013, is there a document that stated how often we would ask the public for info?
I see lots of good stuff we have NOW - I'm looking for old information.
MBaker
Council Member
What can we attribute to having so few responses on the GIS sidewalk "request" link?
What steps are necessary to create more oversight and less internal review of the program? Should a neighborhood petition, HPC, neighborhood commission, or Council action be involved in the approval process?
How does staff decide which side of the street to install a sidewalk on? Why would we choose a side that does not adequately connect to existing sidewalk, forcing people to cross a street to find the next link?
Tree removal seems to suggest that more oversight will occur but can we learn more specifically what remediation is available in the event a tree is killed by the program?
Are there internal community meeting protocols that remove the perception of impropriety when choosing which streets and side of the street will be built out?
Would it make sense on roads with limitations like trees, street size, and community opposition to consider turning them way and using the "freed up" roadway for sidewalk space?
What steps are necessary to create more oversight and less internal review of the program? Should a neighborhood petition, HPC, neighborhood commission, or Council action be involved in the approval process?
How does staff decide which side of the street to install a sidewalk on? Why would we choose a side that does not adequately connect to existing sidewalk, forcing people to cross a street to find the next link?
Tree removal seems to suggest that more oversight will occur but can we learn more specifically what remediation is available in the event a tree is killed by the program?
Are there internal community meeting protocols that remove the perception of impropriety when choosing which streets and side of the street will be built out?
Would it make sense on roads with limitations like trees, street size, and community opposition to consider turning them way and using the "freed up" roadway for sidewalk space?
Response provided by Sabas Avila, Director of Public Works:
1. On the background slide there is "2013 - Council Directed Implementation of Sidewalk Maintenance & Gap
Infill Program" - is this a document? If so, please provide a copy.
Council direction did not take the form of a document but was conveyed verbally during the June 18, 2013 regular Council meeting, Item 1: Sidewalk Maintenance and Gap Infill Program, and budgeted in following years. Time stamp for the City Council Meeting item discussion is between 20:50 and 1:01:00.
2. In searching our website, I find a link to a GIP map, but I'm looking for information such as HOW areas are prioritized (policy) for sidewalks. Please see the attachment “Sidewalk Analysis Procedure” for the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis which provides a summary of the analysis and a step-by-step breakdown. Public feedback also plays a role in prioritizing project locations.
3. Starting in 2013, is there a document that stated how often we would ask the public for info?
There is not a document that summarizes all the public meetings. However, after reviewing calendar events and public notices, public feedback/comments were solicited for the Sidewalk Maintenance and Gap Infill program on the following dates:
- March 8, 2018 – ADA Forum / Sidewalk Maintenance
- May 3, 2018 – Alamo St. Neighborhood Meeting
- January 29, 2019 – ADA Forum / Sidewalk Maintenance
- February 14, 2019 – Downtown Sidewalk Maintenance Plan/Mainstreet Meeting
- June 26, 2019 – City Council Multi-Modal Transit Committee
- July 29, 2019 – Sidewalk Maintenance Plan Public Meeting
- September 6, 2019 - City Council Multi-Modal Transit Committee
- September 19, 2019 - ADA Forum / Sidewalk Maintenance
- January 27, 2020 – Sidewalk Maintenance Public Meeting
- August 30, 2021 – Sidewalk Maintenance and ADA Transition Plan
- January 12, 2022 – ADA Open Forum / Sidewalk Maintenance
https://cosm.maps.arcgis.com/apps/C...x.html?appid=f4e7ed8dfe44486f924b4e781c42bbc0
Response provided by Sabas Avila, Director of Public Works:
What can we attribute to having so few responses on the GIS sidewalk "request" link?
The request link/map was released in October 2021, so is relatively new. 36 comments have been received and 352 “votes” have been cast by the public on the condition of sidewalk segments of interest to them.
What steps are necessary to create more oversight and less internal review of the program? Should a neighborhood petition, HPC, neighborhood commission, or Council action be involved in the approval process? This could take the form of Council direction to staff.
How does staff decide which side of the street to install a sidewalk on? Why would we choose a side that does not adequately connect to existing sidewalk, forcing people to cross a street to find the next link?
In developed areas, the side of the street to install a sidewalk is determined by available right-of-way and quantity of conflicts. City streets are not always centered within the right-of-way. Subsequently, some streets may have very little available right-of-way on one side of the street but have extensive right-of-way on the other side. Additionally, sidewalks are typically placed on the side of the street that has minimal conflicts such as trees, fire hydrants, and utility poles. Connectivity to existing sidewalk infrastructure is always considered. In nearly all cases, new sidewalks will connect to existing sidewalks. In rare cases, if another project is planned for construction, a short time period may exist until the upcoming, planned project is complete and connects the two sidewalks.
Tree removal seems to suggest that more oversight will occur but can we learn more specifically what remediation is available in the event a tree is killed by the program?
In general, the Sidewalk Maintenance and Gap Infill Program tries to avoid removing trees. In fact, this program has rarely had to remove trees. If trees are required to be removed, the program coordinates with the adjacent property owner and City Arborist. The City Arborist advises prior to any work near trees. Tree protection and remediation strategies are implemented based on arborist recommendations and resident input.
Are there internal community meeting protocols that remove the perception of impropriety when choosing which streets and side of the street will be built out?
City staff currently uses the public meetings to answer all questions including the location of the sidewalks.
Would it make sense on roads with limitations like trees, street size, and community opposition to consider turning them way and using the "freed up" roadway for sidewalk space? Yes. Where adequate roadway width and conflicts within the right-of-way exist, this is a preferred method. As an example, Franklin Drive had limited right-of-way. But, had a wide pavement cross-section. Subsequently, the new sidewalk was installed within the street pavement. The new narrower street width also served to calm traffic.
- Status