HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-13 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting
-
-------------
A
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AND WORKSHOP MEETING
OF THE LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL
December 13, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Alton Porter at 6:00 p.m.
Members of City Council Present: Councilmembers Chuck Engelken, Tommy Moser, Barry
Beasley, Peter Griffiths, Mike Clausen, Howard Ebow, Mike Mosteit, and Mayor Alton Porter
Members of Council Absent: Louis Rigby
Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City Manager Debra Feazelle,
Assistant City Manager John Joerns, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Alexander, Assistant City
Attorney Clark Askins, Assistant City Secretary Sharon Harris, Public Works Director Steve
Gillett, City Secretary Martha Gillett, EMS Chief Ray Nolen, Supervising Engineer Robert
Cummings, Planning Director Wayne Sabo, Assistant Parks Director James Eastep, Assistant Fire
Chief John Dunham, Parks and Recreation Director Stephen Barr, Purchasing Manager Susan
Kelley and Accountant Leann Williams
Others Present: Bobbye Worsham, Mike Thomas, Charlotte Williams, Lloyd Williams, Spero
Pomonis, Roy Myers, Kyle Miller, Dana Orth, Dave Turnquist, Jacob Moore, Ryan Vest, Charles
Hester, Don Cameron, David Hawes, Matthew Cook, David Weston, John Hightower, David
Drake, Dottie Kaminski, and other citizens and students
2. Dr. Bobbye Worsham of Second Baptist Church delivered the invocation.
3. Mayor Alton Porter led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. A. Mike Thomas Associate Principal of La Porte High School, students Heather Free and
Amanda Johnson presented Mayor and Council an overview of the SAAD program. Mayor
Porter presented a proclamation proclaiming March 23,2005 as Shattered Dreams Program
Day.
B. Mayor Porter and Assistant City Manager, Cynthia Alexander presented Accountant
Leann Williams with a plaque in honor of being awarded "Employee of the Third Quarter of
2004".
S. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Council to consider approval of the Minutes of the Special Called Council Retreat Meeting
held on October 2, 2004 and the Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop
Meeting held on November 8, 2004.
B. Council to consider awarding bids for Heavy Trucks to low bidder for each item.
C. Council to consider awarding Bid #05002, Plastic Garbage Bags in the amount of $96,600 for
February 2005 bag distribution.
D. Council to consider approval ofInterlocal Agreement with Buy Board.
City Council Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting - December 13,2004 - Page 2
E. Council to consider a contract to replace City Hall AlC Chill Water Piping in the amount of
$27,353.00 and establish a construction contingency in the amount of $2,747.00 for a total of
$30,100.00.
F. Council to consider adopting and endorsing the resolution accepting Keep Texas Beautiful,
Inc. program, and also recommend the endorsement of city staff for the Keep La Porte
Beautiful organizational structure.
G. Council to consider approval of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a
contract with the Port of Houston Authority for the City of La Porte EMS Division.
H. Council to consider approval and authorizing an agreement between the City of La Porte and
Port of Houston Authority for secondary fire suppression services.
1. Council to consider approval and authorizing the City of La Porte participation in an
agreement to continue provision of the Senior Meals Program for La Porte, through Valley
Foods and the City of Houston-Harris County Area Agency on Aging.
Motion was made by Councilmember Engelken to approve the Consent Agenda all at once as
presented. Second by Councilmember Beasley.
Ayes: Beasley, Engelken, Moser, Mosteit, Clausen, Porter, Ebow and Griffiths
Nays: None
Abstain: None
6. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND TAX
PAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM POSTED ON THE AGENDA
Don Cameron of 402 Bay Oaks Rd., La Porte, Texas spoke in regards to road conditions located
near Bayshore Elementary School. Mr. Cameron provided photos and requested Council to look
into the conditions of the roads.
Delia Claus was not present to address City Council.
Dr. Bobbye Worsham of8805 Carlow, La Porte, Texas spoke in support of the improvements to
Canada Road.
Dave Tumquist of333 Josh Way, La Porte, Texas spoke in support of the scooter ordinance and
helmet regulations. Mr. Tumquist requested Council to clarify the age discrepancies of twelve
year olds vs. sixteen year olds before adopting the ordinance.
Council Retired into Executive Session at 6:34 pm to discuss 551.071 (Legal Matter) - Discuss
legal matter with City Attomey and City Manager.
Council Reconvened the Regular Meeting at 7:06 p.m.
7. Council to consider adopting an ordinance amending Fiscal Year 2004-05 Budget for the Grant
Fund to incorporate law enforcement terrorism prevention programs and state homeland security
programs.
Assistant City Manager, Cynthia Alexander presented summary and recommendation and
answered Council's questions.
City Council Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting - December 13, ZUU4 - Page 3
Assistant City Attomey Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2762-B - AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS,
FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER I, 2004 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004; FINDING
THAT ALL THINGS REQUISITE AND NECESSARY HAVE BEEN DONE IN
PREPARATION AND PRESENTMENT OF SAID BUDGET; FINDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Beasley to approve Ordinance 2004-2762-B as presented
bv Mr. Dolbv. Second by Councilmember Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
8. Council to consider approval authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Angel
Brothers Enterprises, LTD in the amount of$2,793,614, and authorize a contingency of
$139,680.
Public Works Director Steve Gillett presented summary and recommendation and answered
Council's questions.
Assistant City Attomey Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2797 - AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE
AND ANGEL BROTHERS ENTERPRISES, LTD., FOR IMPROVEMENT TO CANADA
ROAD; APPROPRIATING $2,793,614.00 PLUS A CONTINGENCY OF $139,680.00, TO
FUND SAID CONTRACT; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED
TO THE SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Engelken to approve Ordinance 2004-2797 as presented by
Mr. Gillett. Second by Councilmember Moser. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
9. Council to consider approval of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Contract
Change No.3 with Freese and Nichols, Inc. to provide project representation in an amount not to
exceed $90,255.00.
Public Works Director Steve Gillett presented summary and recommendation and answered
Council's questions.
Assistant City Attomey Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2798 - AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING CHANGE OF CONTRACT NO.3 BETWEEN THE
CITY OF LA PORTE AND FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC., ENGINEERS, TO AMEND THE
ORIGINAL DESIGN CONTRACT TO PROVIDE PROJECT REPRESENTATION SERVICES
ON THE CANADA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; APPROPRIATING THE SUM NOT
TO EXCEED $90,255.00 TO FUND SAID CONTRACT; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS
AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Clausen to approve Ordinance 2004-2798 as presented by
Mr. Gillett. Second by Councilmember Moser. The motion carried.
City Council Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting - December 13, 2004 - Page 4
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
10. Council to consider approval authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Hull &
Hull, Inc. for the construction of Fire Station No.2 for a net cost of $1 ,320,462 with a five
percent contingency of $66,023.00.
Public Works Director Steve Gillett presented summary and recommendation and answered
Council's questions.
Assistant City Attomey Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2799 - AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE
AND HULL & HULL, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATION NO.2;
APPROPRIATING $1,320,462.00 PLUS A CONTINGENCY OF $66,023.00 TO FUND SAID
CONTRACT; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Engelken to approve Ordinance 2004-2799 as presented by
Mr. Gillett. Second by Councilmember Griffiths. The motion carried.
,^'~
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
11.
Council to consider approval of Ordinance 2004-2733-A, amending Ordinance 2004-2733.
Planning Director and Community Development Director Wayne Sabo presented summary and
recommendation and answered Council's questions.
Assistant City Attomey Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2733-A - AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 82 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 82, "BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS",
ARTICLE I "IN GENERAL", BY AMENDING SECTION 82-11 AND ADDING SECTION 82-
12, AND AMENDING SECTION 3 OF ORDINANCE 2004-2733; PROVIDING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING THAT ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE
TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FINED A SUM NOT TO EXCEED TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS; AND PROVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Moser to approve Ordinance 2004-2733-A as presented by
Mr. Sabo. Second by Councilmember Clausen. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
12. Council to consider approval of an ordinance to vacate, abandon and close the alleys in Blocks
1135, 1136 and 1137 and the portion of the 14th Street right-of-way, Town of La Porte.
Planning Director and Community Development Director Wayne Sabo presented summary and
reconU11endation and answered Council's questions.
City Council Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting - December 13, 2004 - Page 5
Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2800 - AN ORDINANCE
VACATING, ABANDONING AND CLOSING THE ALLEYS IN BLOCKS 1135, 1136 &
1137, TOWN OF LA PORTE AND A PORTION OF THE 14TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY,
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW:
AND PROVIDING AN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Ebow to approve Ordinance 2004-2800 as presented by
Mr. Sabo. Second by Council member Moser. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
13. Council to consider voiding condemnation Ordinance 2004-2767.
Planning Director and Community Development Director Wayne Sabo presented summary and
recommendation and answered Council's questions.
Motion was made by Councilmember Beasley to condemn Ordinance 2004-2767 as presented by
Mr. Sabo. Second by Council member Ebow. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
14. Council to consider approval of an ordinance appointing members to the Main Street Advisory
Board.
Mayor Alton Porter presented summary and recommendation and answered Council's questions.
Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2801- AN ORDINANCE
CREATING A MAIN STREET ADVISORY BOARD; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF
OFFICE AND QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
OPEN MEETINGS LAW; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Griffiths to approve Ordinance 2004-2801 as presented by
Mayor Alton Porter. Second by Councilmember Moser. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
15. Council to consider approving an ordinance appointing positions to fill the remaining vacancies
on Boards and Commissions.
Council appointed Les Bird as Alternate 2 on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council appointed Tim Bird to Position 1 on the Fire Code Review Committee, Tom Hayes was
moved to Position 6, leaving Position 3 vacant. Position 5 is still vacant due to Councilmember
Rigby not being present to appoint a member. Mayor Porter replaced Sam Brechtel with Lynn
Green.
City Council Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting - December 13, 2004 - Page 6
Council appointed Clare Zambroski, Bobby Schlenk, Michaelyn Dunaway, Gerald Metcalf, Doug
Martin, Deborah Johnson, Vicki Campise, Jim Zoller and Lawrence McNeal to the Main Street
Advisory Board. The Committee will elect a Chairperson and draw for their position numbers.
Council appointed Tom Campbell to Position 1, Joe Gold to Position 2, Fransisco Velez to
Position 3, Ron Holt to Position 4, Ken Sclather to Position 5, John Elfstom to Position 6, and
Bruce Compton to Position 7 of the Building Codes Appeal Board.
Two positions are remaining to be filled on the Main Street Advisory Board and two on the Fire
Code Review Committee. Council requested this ordinance be brought back to the next meeting.
Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read: ORDINANCE 2004-2782-A - AN ORDINANCE
APPOINTING MEMBERS TO V ARlOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES,
OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; CONTAINING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made bv Councilmember Griffiths to approve Ordinance 2004-2787-A as presented
by Mayor Alton Porter. Second by Councilmember Ebow. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Young, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter
Nays: None
Abstain: None
16. The Regular Meeting was closed at 8:09 p.m. and took a five minute break. The Workshop
Meeting opened at 8: 15 p.m.
A. Council to discuss petition for creation of public improvement district (PID) as presented by
Assistant City Manager John Joerns and TIRZ Consultant David Hawes. David Hawes
provided overview ofPIDs. The City Secretary will receive a petition from an individual or
a group of individuals representing 50% + 1 % of the value and either more than 50% of the
owners ofrecord or represents more than 50% of the land area; the current petition meets the
test. If the City wants PID, a Public Hearing is required; with 2 resolutions also being
required, the first for "Finding of Fact" and the other for "Creation". These items must be
printed and published once in the paper at any time; once they are published, the 20-day
window begins. The City will enter an agreement with the Redevelopment Authority (TIRZ)
with approval by ordinance. A copy of the proposed assessment roll must be filed with the
City Secretary. Notice of the public hearing on the roll must be mailed to affected property
owners and published in the same manner that notice was given for creation of the PID,
except at least 10 days notice must be provided.
B. City Secretary Martha Gillett discussed election polling locations, with possibly adding an
early voting location on the West side, and possibly including a Saturday west side location.
There is a possibility of two Saturdays being available for early voting; location/locations will
be mailed out with the citizen's utility bill. Election workers, translators and City staff
manhours will be included in the cost of the election. County training would be held at the
Jennie Riley Civic Center and the Senior Services Center. Council directed the City
Secretary to consult with the City Attorney.
C. Police Chief Reff discussed a proposed ordinance regarding motor assisted scooters and
requested direction. Chief Reff discussed amending the Motor Assisted Scooter Ordinance,
requesting the scooters being prohibited on certain streets and highways; requiring that
children wear a protective helmet (matching the Motorcycle Helmet Law, with the child
City Council Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting - December 13, 2004 - Page 7
-
being at least 12 years old. A letter from Mayor Porter will be sent to Senator Mike Jackson
regarding the legislative changes on the ordinance. The fine in Section 6 should be $500.
This item will be brought back at the January 10,2004 City Council Meeting.
These Items D and E will be brought back at the January 10, 2004 City Council Meeting.
Items F and G will be further studied and brought back to a future meeting.
D. Planning and Community Development Director Wayne Sabo discussed development of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 106, Section 106-333, Section 106-443, and
Section 106-522; Table B of the Code of Ordinances for a change of modification to the
maximum height within Zoning Districts and provide staff with direction.
E. Planning and Community Development Director Wayne Saba discussed new flood insurance
rate maps (firms) and the federally mandated process to adopt the new maps and provide staff
with direction.
F. Mayor Porter discussed future action regarding an ordinance naming the new City of La Porte
Fire Station No.2 for the late H. P. Pfeiffer, former Mayor of the City of La Porte.
G. Assistant City Manager Cynthia Alexander discussed and reviewed reduction of sick leave
liability.
17. The Workshop Meeting was closed and the Regular Meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
,,,,~
18.
Administrative Reports
City Manager Debra Feazelle reminded Council and Staff of Commissioner Sylvia Garcia's
Holiday Open House on December 14,2004 at Kyle Chapman Annex from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m.;
TXDOT Public Hearing to discuss proposed expansion of SH 146 from Fairmont Parkway in
Harris County to SH 3 in Galveston County on December 14, 2004 at La Porte High School from
6 p.m. until 8 p.m.; La Porte Fire Department Christmas Party on December 15,2004 at Sylvan
Beach Pavilion from 6:30 p.m. until 9 p.m.; Houston Gulf Coast Building and Construction
Trades Council Christmas Party on December 16, 2004 at the Hobby Airport Hilton from 10 a.m.
until 2 p.m.; Employee Holiday Celebration will be held at Thursday, December 17,2004, from
11 a.m. until 1 p.m. in the Council Chambers, District 4 Town Hall Meeting on January 6, 2005 at
Evelyn Kennedy Center from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m.; and the City Council Retreat on January 22,
2005 at the La Porte Community Library from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.
19. Council Comments
Ebow, Griffiths, Engelken, Mosteit, Beasley, Clausen, Moser and Porter had comments.
20. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PURSUANT TO PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS
LAW, CHAPTER 551.071 THROUGH 551.076, 551-087, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE
(CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL
PROPERTY, DELIBERATION REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT OR DONATION,
PERSONNEL MATTERS, DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES, OR
EXCLUDING A WITNESS DURING EXAMINATION OF ANOTHER WITNESS IN AN
INVESTIGATION, DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NEGOTrA TrONS)
551.073 - (Prospective Gift or Donation) - Meet with City Attorney and City Manager to discuss
prospective gift or donation to the City.
City Council Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting - December 13,2004 - Page 8
551.072 - (Land Acquisition) - Meet with City Manager and City Attorney for the purpose of
deliberating the purchase, exchange, lease of value of real property
551.087 - (Economic Development) - Meet with the City Manager and City Attorney to discuss
Economic Development matter
Council retired to Executive Session at 9:25 p.m. and the Regular Meeting reconvened at 10:21
p.m.
21. CONSIDERA nONS AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEMS CONSIDERED IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
There was no action taken during Executive Session.
22. There being no further business to come before Council, the Regular Meeting was duly adjourned
at 10:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~/Y~/i.nU ~
Martha 6YIrM,/M~
City Secretary
Passed and approved on this 10th day of January 2005,
~l>~
Mayor Alton E. Porter
.......,
B
--
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: Januar: 12. 2005
\"~
Requested By: Alfn.d Owpn~/ s. ~lm Kpllpy ~~
Appropriation
Source of Funds: Cnmplltpr/Gpnprlll
Account Number: Various
Department:
Information Technology
Amount Budgeted: $ 131,750.00
Report: x Resolution:
Ordinance:
Amount Requested: $ 131,750.00
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: ~ NO
Exhibits:
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
In the past, the City staff submitted a Request for Proposal in order to receive pricing for computer supplies. Due to
increasing technology and the continual upgrading of computer hardware and software, the items bid were often
obsolete prior to award by Council.
In an effort to minimize staff time and effort on researching for the latest compatible or "equal" product to the item
bid, staff is requesting approval to purchase computer and technological related products from the State of Texas
Department ofInformation Resources (DIR). The City has utilized a prior interlocal agreement through the State.
IT will continue to request competitive quotes, within the DIR vendor source, to ensure the best price and product
are obtained.
IT staff has identified the majority of purchases as listed below:
Personal Computers Replacements and upgrades
Replacement/U nscheduled printers
Hardware for network expansion (Routers, hubs, switches, cable channel)
Network Software
Software Training for City Employee's (Windows Applications)
Miscellaneous hardware/software items
$ 78,800
$ 6,500
$ 10,000
$ 17,650
$ 19,000
$ 1,000
Total
$131,750
Action ReQuired bv Council:
Approve utilization ofinterlocal agreement through the State of Texas Department ofInformation Resources.
1-1~o s
Date
c
,.
~THE
UJ~
~ ~ DISTRICT
;,.-... .". .~
December 16, 2004
DEe 2 0 200\
::;11 v .;:,\c;t.;t'tErAk"S
OFFICE ·
The Honorable Alan Porter
Mayor
City of La Porte
604 W. Fairmont Parkway
La Porte, Texas 77571
Dear Mayor Porter:
As General Manager of the Subsidence District, it is my responsibility to notify you that the term
of office of Jodi (Bobo) Norris as a board member of the Subsidence District will expire on
January 31, 2005. The appointment is to be made by the mayors ofthe cities of Deer Park,
Galena Park, La Porte, Nassau Bay, and Seabrook, and by the President of the Clear Lake City
Water Authority. Ms. Norris may be reappointed for a two-year term. All members appointed to
the Subsidence District board must be residents of and qualified voters in the District.
Your selection of a director should be made by Friday, January 21, 2005. Please send your letter
confirming your appointment to the address listed below.
Your interest in and support of the Subsidence District is greatly appreciated, and I look forward
to working with you and your staff in 2005. Please contact me if you have any questions
concerning the board appointments.
Ronald J. Neighbors
General Manager
RJN/rg
HARRIS-GALVESTON
COASTAL SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT
281-486-1105
Fax: 281-218-3700
postm aster@subsidence.org
1660 WEST BAY AREA BOULEVARD
FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 77546-2640
www.subsidence.org
A
Requested By:
Appropriation
Department:
Stephen L. Barr _"
Pub &. RI1~rl111thnl i
Acc't Number:
Report: ~Resolution: _Ordinance: _
Amount Budgeted:
N/A
Exhibits:
Report
Amount Requested:
N/A
Exhibits:
Attachments
Bud eted Item:
YES
NO N/A
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Please refer to the report titled Bicycle/Pedestrian and Equestrian Trails in La Porte and various attachments
included in your Agenda Packet.
Action Required bv Council:
Receive report and provide staff direction on future BicycleIPedestrian and Equestrian Trails in La Porte.
J ---- tj ---- 0 5
Date
y
Parks and Recreation Department
Bicycle/Pedestrian and Equestrian Trails in La Porte
January 10, 2005
Stephen L. Barr, Director
Page 1 of 4
..
.f
Overview
In June of 2003 Council approved, by Resolution, a Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail
Implementation Plan for the City of La Porte. This plan is serving as a guide for future
development of a comprehensive trail plan for La Porte that, when completed, will link
all the city (and County) parks, schools, and public recreation areas in the City for
pedestrian and bicycle access.
Current Status
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail system has begun in earnest, with the design in place
for the Safe Routes to School project through a grant from the Texas Department of
Transportation. This project, still subject to approval from Austin, is scheduled to be let
for construction contract this spring, with construction scheduled for the summer of
2005. The Safe Routes to School project, when completed, will provide a safe, off-road
pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians on the South Broadway corridor from the
Shoreacres City Limit, to Fairmont Parkway. This is the most-needed pathway in our
system; since 2000 we have experienced numerous pedestrian/bicycle vehicular
accidents and 2 bicycle/vehicle fatalities on this roadway. In addition, an in-house
design of bicycle lanes from East "E" Street to Broadway has been completed and is
ready for implementation.
Potential Problems for Implementation
There are several issues that require staff direction before we can proceed with future
plans, prioritized as follows:
1. Safe Routes to School Proiect. This project was funded at 100% ($470,000)
for estimated cost of construction through the TxDOT grant that we received,
and TxDOT engineers believe they have designed a project that will come in
at budget. However, if the cost of construction exceeds the budgeted amount,
our agreement with TxDOT for the project stipulates that the City will fund any
cost overruns.
2. "E" Street Bicycle Lanes. This project is designed but is currently unfunded.
The estimated cost of installation for this project, using force account, is
$22,000 through the Public Works/Parks & Recreation Department.
3. Pasadena Corridor. This is the phase I project as identified in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Implementation Plan. In order to qualify for state and federal grant
funding for bicycle-pedestrian pathways, our project must be included in the
Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP, administered through H-GAC.
Our bicycle-pedestrian plan is included in the TIP for the 2008 call. However,
in order to qualify for federal or state funding through CMAQ, STEP, ISTEA,
or other TxDOT funding, the TIP requires that the project have complete
Preliminary Engineering (Le. be surveyed, designed and otherwise ready for
construction) as well as Environmental Analysis completed, prior to the call in
order to be considered for funding. Another issue here is, that "being ready for
Page 2 of 4
construction" does not guarantee that a project will be approved for shared
funding utilizing federal funding. There is a tremendous public demand for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout Texas and the United States, as
this form of recreation/transportation has become increasingly popular;
demand for funding has increased dramatically. In addition, pathways
constructed with federal funds must meet the American Association of State
Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards which are very
stringent (and very expensive). Staff has solicited a proposal from Halff
Associates for design of this approximately 5-mile pathway on Fairmont
Parkway from Luella to SH 146. The design proposal, not including surveying
and other incidental costs, was approximately $85,000. In order to proceed
with this project, additional funding will be needed in the upcoming FY 05-06
budget in order to complete the design and be ready for the 2008 call. It
should also be noted here that the money spent for preliminary engineering
and environmental analysis to prepare for the potential grant, is not
reimbursable through the TIP or other governmental agencies.
4. The other major source of funding for bicycle and pedestrian trails for us is
recreational trails through the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. TPWD has
changed the rules to make their grant process more stringent due to the
increasing number of grant applications they have received. One opportunity
for grants that is largely untapped at present is the equestrian and off-road
recreational trails grants. A part of our implementation plan calls for an
equestrian trail along the F-101 waterway in northwest La Porte.
Recommendations
Staff recommends the following actions be taken in order of priority:
1. Council approved $100,000 in the FY 2003-2004 budget for trail implementation
that has been held in abeyance due to the possible required match for the Safe
Routes to School project mentioned above. Once a decision is made and bids let
for this project, we will have an idea how much, if any, will be required to get it
constructed. Staff recommends that we continue to hold these funds until we
have definite construction costs from TxDOT. Should the required funds exceed
the available $100,000, Council will need to decide whether or not to continue
with the project by approving the expenditure of any additional funding that may
be required.
2. Should the budgeted funds not be needed for SRS, then the "E" Street bicycle
lane project could be funded (cost is approximately $22,000), leaving a balance
of +/- $78,000. This could be used to fund another small project that would have
good impact such as flood control district right-ot-way, or as a match tor the
equestrian grant program, or as a portion of priority 3 below.
3. Instead of spending money to prepare for and fund a portion ot a potential grant
through state and federal funds, Council may want to consider straight funding
for a trail system, with the potential for shared funding through Harris County.
Council may recall the new 10' concrete connector pathway that was installed
Page 3 of 4
from the Recreation & Fitness Center to the new pedestrian bridge over Little
Cedar Bayou. While this pathway does not meet AASHTO standards, it is very
nice and serviceable and was installed for approximately $28 per linear foot. At
this cost, a mile of concrete pathway could be installed for $150,000, or a little
less than twice the cost for design (to federal and AASHTO standards) of the 5
mile Pasadena connector. Staff recommendation is that Council consider
budgeting funding for 1 mile per year on the Pasadena Connector route without
TxDOT assistance, at a rate somewhat higher than the 20% match rate required
through TxDOT but much quicker and a more sure method. By dedicating
$150,000 per year to trails, the City could have 80% of the Pasadena Connector
installed before it would even be considered for matching funds through CMAQ,
SRS, or other federal funding mechanisms.
Summary
Staff is requesting Council direction before moving forward with bicycle and pedestrian
(and equestrian) trail implementation for La Porte. As discussed, there are opportunities
for recreational trail implementation that will meet our plan and are possible grant
funding candidates. Another possibility is for partnerships with neighboring cities, the
Port Authority, and Harris County to subsidize the cost to our citizens. In both the 2000
Park and Open Space Master Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Implementation
Plan public forums, bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails ranked among the highest
park and recreation needs, by La Porte citizens. The Plan calls for implantation of
approximately 36 miles of trails, through the year 2021, at an estimated cost of $10.5
million. With the completion of the Safe Routes to School portion and the connector
pathway from the RFC to Little Cedar Bayou, we will have about 2.5 miles of that
completed by the end of this fiscal year. The city will need to allocate funds for seed
money for grants and to fund smaller in-house projects that will help us to meet these
needs. The key to successful funding is to have our share of the needed funding in
place in order to aggressively compete for grant aid for future projects. Otherwise, we
will not be successful in this very worthwhile endeavor. I have included a copy of the
HGAC Draft 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, Appendix "C" Regional Bikeway Plan
Update, as well as the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department proposed changes in grant
processing, for your review, as well as the cost estimate pages from the La Porte
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Implementation Plan. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have about these issues.
Attachments
Page 4 of 4
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
APPENDIX C
Regional Bikeway Plan Update
Highlights
H-GAC's 1996 Regional Bikeway Plan identified 161 miles of existing bikeways within
the TMA. Since then, an additional 284 miles of facilities have been built, giving the Transportation
Management Area (TMA) a total 445 miles of bikeways. A review of current local bikeway plans
and bikeways identified in Major Investment Study (MIS) preferred alternatives since 1996
indicates that a total of 1,243 miles of new bikeways are planned
In recent years, the eight-county Houston-Galveston TMA has averaged more than 1,000
crashes per year involving pedestrians or bicyclists. Additionally, the 2000 U.S. Census reported
that more than 7 percent of households in the TMA do not have access to an automobile. The key
to successfully integrating pedestrian and bicycle accommodations into roadway projects is to
start early in the planning process, especially where new right of way (ROW) must be acquired.
To address the issues, H-GAC recommends the following actions:
. H-GAC will encourage local governments to submit current bikeway plans and project
information on an annual basis to maintain an up-to-date Regional Bikeway Plan.
. H-GAC will encourage and provide assistance to local governments with the
preparation of bikeway plans.
. H -GAC will promote the use of standard terminology as defined in AASHTO' s
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, adopted by the Texas
Transportation Commission and used by TxDOT.
. A more detailed inventory of existing bikeways will be developed by H-GAC to
determine consistency with AASHTO, facility suitability, and any safety and
maintenance problems.
. H-GAC, TxDOT and local project sponsors will work together to attempt to identify
the most cost-effective approaches to facility design, while maintaining consistency
with AASHTO guidelines. H-GAC will continue to develop information resources,
provide training opportunities and offer technical assistance to help enhance the level
of bikeway design in the TMA.
. Project sponsors should make maintenance a key component of their local planning
efforts and outline their long-term maintenance plans for projects submitted to the
RTP and TIP.
. H-GAC will continue to develop data resources and tools to project levels of bicycle
activity and air quality benefits of bikeway projects.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 1 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Regional Bikeway Plan element of the RTP is to identify existing and
planned facilities within the Transportation Management Area (TMA) where bicycle travel is
encouraged. H-GAC intends that the Regional Bikeway Plan be used to identify future RTP and
TIP projects and serve as a guide to coordinate roadway planning and future bikeway projects.
Bikeways included in this plan shall be defined as one of the following facility types:
On-Street Bikeways
. Bike Lanes - designated portion of roadway with signage and pavement
markings for the preferred or exclusive use by bicyclists.
. Signed Shared Roadways - roadways with "Bike Route" signage, but no
pavement markings, where shared use with motorists is encouraged.
. Signed Shoulder Bike Routes - roadways with shoulders and "Bike Route"
slgnage.
Off-Street Bikeways
. Shared-use Path - facilities that are separated from the roadway system, often
accommodating a variety of non-motorized modes.
The existing bikeways identified in the Regional Bikeway Plan are, for the most part,
within public rights of way and provide transportation options beyond recreational benefits. The
plan does not include the many trail systems that provide circulation within parks or privately
developed trails within subdivisions. Facilities shown as proposed include: those identified in
local bikeway plans or capital improvement programs; RTP and current TIP projects; projects
selected for funding under the Statewide Transportation Enhancements Program (STEP); projects
selected for funding under the Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality (CMAQ) projegram, and
bikeways identified as part of the preferred alternative in Major Investment Studies (MIS).
Making Progress
H-GAC's 1996 Regional Bikeway Plan identified 161 miles of existing bikeways within
the TMA. Since then, an additional 284 miles of facilities have been built, giving the TMA a total
445 miles of bikeways. These facilities can be categorized as follows:
. Bike Lanes
. Signed Shared Roadways
. Signed Shoulder Routes
. Shared-use Paths/Trails
125 miles
129 miles
84 miles
108 miles
A review of current local bikeway plans and bikeways identified in Major Investment
Studies (MIS) "preferred alternatives"(State Highway 3, US 290) was performed. Since 1996,
there is an additional 1,243 miles of new bikeways planned. These include the following types of
facilities:
· Bike Lanes
· Signed Shared Roadways
· Signed Shoulder Routes
· Shared-use PathsITrails
99 miles (MIS)
42 miles
o miles
1,102 miles
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 2 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Map 1: Regional Bikeway Network
EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES Draft
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Ell"""
-_~LA"f
-IICiOlWIIJII,lItOIlQ.ow,t,.
~_._."'''Il~ ._~C>u S;,;( 1I0l,lU
..-"..'S....UI~......T..'TIO,..l
PI/OI'OSE'
._h "~tl,,1i(
::'::rD~~~,~~~~~:.,
[:::1'-- .--
. ::;'':'7~::'''-
A "'"
~i~~,."
Page 3 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area COuncil
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Map 2: Harris County Detail
I
f · ~ fff".
JJtli J.
'It Ii!
.~ 01);1
I '1,4
.~. .....$. . '., ,..".,',1,
iI. ,II
! i i .II,
APPond;x C Reg;onaJ Bikew.y Plan and De,ign GUidelin",
Page 4 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Funding Commitments
H-GAC's current TIP contains 43 pedestrian and bicycle projects, representing an
investment of nearly $85 million. The Draft 2025 RTP, with subsequent amendments, contains an
additional 41 pedestrian and bicycle projects with a projected cost of $117 million. A number of
local governments have also made over $122 million in local funding commitments to bikeway
development in their current Capital Improvement Programs.
While a majority of these financial commitments pertain to specific pedestrian and
bicycle projects, H-GAC has conducted a Pedestrian and Bicycle Special Districts Study,
establishing a basis for developing and evaluating future bicycle and pedestrian improvements
within the 8 county region. There were 12 special districts identified, $18 million within the Draft
2025 R TP is dedicated to strategic investment for improving pedestrian and bicycle travel
conditions where these facilities are in great demand.
Local Bikeway Planning and Development
A summary of recent and current bikeway initiatives within the TMA is presented below.
Brazoria County
TxDOT signed shoulders as bicycle routes along several state roadways in Brazoria
County .
· City of Alvin - The City of Alvin is constructing bicycle lanes and signed
shoulders to accommodate bicycle through movements through the municipality
and is also developing shared-use paths to link residential land uses with schools
and parks within the city. Alvin's Mustang Trail System is part ofH-GAC's
current TIP and has received funding support from the STEP.
· City of Lake Jackson - Lake Jackson developed a master plan for pedestrian!
bicycle trails projects and is in various stages of development of several facilities.
A shared-use path project along Oyster Creek Drive is in the current TIP. Lake
Jackson and has also received authorization from the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department for the Dow Centennial Trail. The City has also requested that TxDOT
consider a bike route along SH 322 as part of their planned expansion of this
facility.
Chambers County
Bicycle planning and facility development in Chambers County has been limited to
shared-use paths developed within and in conjunction with recreational facilities.
Fort Bend County
All of the master-planned communities in Fort Bend County have internal networks of
shared-use path facilities. Existing public bicycle facilities in the county consist of
shared-use paths in recreational areas and wide shoulders that have been added as a part
of several roadway improvements.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 5 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
The Fort Bend Mobility Committee is currently evaluating options for developing new
facilities that would connect the bicycle and pedestrian networks in the master-planned
communities with each other and future municipal networks throughout the county. The
committee identified the need to include a bicycle element in their future plans, but has
not yet defined the scope of this effort.
. City of Missouri City - Missouri City has seven bikeway projects identified in
the RTP, including construction of shared-use paths, as well as restriping of
roadways to include bike lanes. All projects are slated to start in the 2003-2005
time frame.
. City of Sugar Land - The City of Sugar Land has developed a shared-use path
system that connects park facilities within the city. Sugar Land also has two
bicycle and pedestrian bridge projects in the RTP. A bicycle and pedestrian
bridge will also be constructed over Oyster Creek and Ditch A to connect
existing facilities.
Galveston County
Galveston County's bicycle planning and facility development has been limited to
shared-use paths within and in conjunction with recreational facilities.
· City of Galveston - There are several roadways with bicycle route signage, but
the City of Galveston has not officially designated these as signed shared
roadways. Shared-use paths have been developed within and in conjunction with
park facilities
· City of League City - League City has a current 2003 TIP project to construct a
hike and bike trail along SH 96. The City also has three shared-use path projects
included in the RTP that will begin between 2010-2012.
· Texas City - A system of hike and bike trails connecting schools, parks, activity
centers and points of interest was listed in the city's Goals 2000 plan as a need of
the community. Since 2000, the City of Texas City has installed over 12 miles of
shared-use paths.
Harris County
Harris County, through its parks department, flood control district, and commissioner
precinct offices, has developed an extensive shared-use path system. In May 2003, the
commissioners court adopted a parks master plan that will vastly expand this system,
providing shared-use paths along most bayous, links between recreational facilities, and
between existing and proposed facilities of the City of Houston and Fort Bend County.
Shared-use paths currently under design include one along South Mayde Creek, an
extension of the trails from Terry Hershey Park to the Metro Park & Ride lot, as well as a
pedestrian bridge east of Dairy Ashford Road. Harris County has 25 bikeway projects in
the RTP and some of them have also received STEP funding commitments from TxDOT.
In addition to bikeway projects sponsored by Harris County, several improvement
districts have bikeway projects underway or planned. The Greater Greenspoint
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 6 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Management District has three RTP projects to develop a shared-use path system and
supporting amenities. A trail project of the Westchase District also received a STEP
funding commitment. TERO has contributed $8.8 million to the city of Houston for
implementation of the city's bikeway plan
. City of Baytown - The City ofBaytown has three shared-use path projects in H-GAC's
current TIP. The Goose Creek facility was selected for STEP funding.
. City of Bellaire - The City of Bellaire has a 2.5-mile shared-use path along
Newcastle Street and a half-mile trail along Holly Street. Pedestrian and bike
trails/paths were listed as the top need by Bellaire citizens in a 1999 survey and
Bellaire is actively pursuing a pedestrian and bike path that would connect all
four major quadrants of the city.
. Clear Lake Area - Several miles of bike lanes and hike and bike trails have been
designed and constructed by the various communities in the Clear Lake area. The
Bay Area Transportation Partnership (BA TP), a coalition of these communities and
other organizations, has been working with Harris County and TxDOT officials to
take an inventory of these facilities and develop a master plan for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. This inventory, initiated in August 2003, along with the
subsequent master plan, will help the BA TP set priorities and implementation
strategies for improving connectivity of bikeways within southeast Harris County.
· City of Houston - The City of Houston made significant progress in implementing
its bicycle master plan. The city's current network of facilities includes 255 miles
of on-street bicycle lanes and signed bicycle routes, and an additional 10 miles of
shared-use paths. Changes to the city's master plan include the temporary suspension
of the designated bikeway along 20th Street. Bike lanes were removed from West
Dallas and replaced with a shared wide outside lane. The bike lanes along West
Alabama were removed as part of the traffic mitigation plan for the reconstruction
of Route SO/Spur 527; a bicycle route was assigned to Fairview and other local
streets as a substitute for the West Alabama facility. Houston also accelerated
development of 100 additional miles of shared-use paths. These projects are
entering construction and design review and are funded with local and state funds.
The City of Houston has 12 projects in the current TIP and three in the RTP. These
projects, which are slated for implementation by the city or in conjunction with
TxDOT, include both shared-use path facilities, as well as improvements to the
on-street bikeway network. Eleven of the City of Houston projects received
STEP funding commitments.
· City of La Porte - Currently, the only bicycle and pedestrian facilities are within
city parks, however, the City of La Porte adopted a bicycle and pedestrian trail
implementation plan in June 2003. The goal of the plan is to develop a network
of paths, trails, bike lanes and routes that are multipurpose, accessible where
possible, convenient and connect to residential neighborhoods, parks, schools,
workplaces, shopping and major open paces, linking into neighboring trail
systems within the City of Pasadena and the Clear Lake area. Elements of the
LaPorte shared-use path network are included in the RTP.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 7 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
. City of Pasadena - The City of Pasadena developed a bikeway plan and
incorporated several projects into its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The
projects include construction of shared-use paths and bike and pedestrian bridges,
as well as additions to existing trails. The projects are expected to be completed
before 2007.
Libertv County
Bicycle planning and facility development in Liberty County has been limited to
recreational facilities developed within and in conjunction with park facilities.
Monteomerv County
Most of the bikeways in Montgomery County are located in its southern portion.
Approximately 60 miles of 8-foot concrete shared-use paths connect residential areas
with schools, village centers, churches, parks and other developments. The majority of
these facilities are located within The Woodlands, however, there are also facilities in the
communities of Chateau Woods, Oak Ridge North and Shenandoah.
Waller County
Bicycle and pedestrian facility development in WaIler County has been limited to construction
of off-road multipurpose trails that are primarily utilized for recreational purposes.
Guidelines for Bicycle Accommodations
Roadway project sponsors should consult the Regional Bikeway Plan, as well as local
jurisdiction(s) planes), when considering appropriate bikeway accommodations to determine
whether their project limits include any designated on-street bikeways and provide appropriate
accommodations to ensure system continuity. For safety and mobility, additional consideration
should be given to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections, over/underpasses, and
where existing bikeways and pedestrian paths cross roadways.
Another important consideration is how bicyclists will access the bikeway system from
their trip origins and destinations. Providing better accommodations on the overall roadway
network will enable bicyclists to safely reach those facilities that have been designed specifically
for their use. Project sponsors should consider providing basic bicycle accommodation on all
appropriate roadway facilities. Where on-street accommodations are not feasible, Project
sponsors should consider providing safe access at reasonable intervals to the nearest parallel
bikeway facility.
Project sponsors should consult H-GAC's Guidelinesfor Accommodating Pedestrians
and Bicyclists and AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, which presents
recommendations for on- and off-street accommodations.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 8 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Other Bikeway Planning and Implementation Issues
While much has been accomplished since 1996, there are still a number of issues that will
need to be addressed to establish an outstanding bikeway network in the TMA.
Consistent Terminology and Mapping
One obstacle to building a coordinated regional system is the lack of consistency in the
methods and terminology used by local entities to develop bikeway plans. Resolving
inconsistencies in terminology and mapping conventions will allow for greater
information sharing and project coordination, particularly when a facility traverses
multiple jurisdictions. H-GAC recommends the use of the following standardized
terminology, as identified in the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities,
for local bikeway planning purposes:
On-Street
Bike Lane
Signed Shared Roadway
Signed Shoulder Bike Route
Off-Street
Shared-use Path
Subsequent updates of the Regional Bikeway Plan will also include additional categories
of future projects to allow for better tracking of project status and level of commitment.
In addition to using this terminology, H-GAC encourages local governments to adopt
standard Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping formats to facilitate electronic
data transfer among agencies and local jurisdictions.
Design and Maintenance
Achieving greater consistency in the design and maintenance of local bikeways will be a
crucial step increasing usage and improving safety. Many facilities in the TMA have
deficiencies in one or both of these areas.
. Guidelines - The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) established guidelines for bikeways, last updated in 1999.
Federally funded bikeway projects require TxDOT administration and must be
designed and constructed to meet the current AASHTO guide. Utilizing federal
funds is often a more costly proposition than communities anticipate. The
federal process entails additional procedural requirements which can add time
and cost to project development. Additionally, federal aid investments are
intended to support long-term heavy use facilities, usually entailing higher
design, ROWand construction costs. As a result, smaller projects may not be
suitable for federal funding and sponsors may wish to consider using local
resources which will afford them greater flexibility
.
It is important that local project sponsors be aware that the higher costs of
building bikeways using AASHTO-guidelines can be offset by reduced
maintenance costs over the life of the facility. For example, asphalt trails cost
much less build, but will require greater maintenance and have a shorter useful
life. It should also be considered that well-designed facilities are safer and will
allow higher levels of usage as demand grows.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 9 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
AASHTO guidelines are flexible, and cost-effective designs are available, especially
in areas not subject to flooding or where lower usage is projected. H-GAC's
Guidelines for Accommodating Pedestrians and Bicyclists provides a range of
recommendations for off-road bikeways, based on AASHTO guidelines.
. Design - Another common bikeway design problem in the TMA concerns the
striping of bike lanes on existing roadways that are not well suited for bicycle
travel. Smooth pavement, proper placement of gutter seams, and orientation of
storm sewer grates are all key features of safe on-road facilities. If existing
roadway conditions are unsuitable, it may be desirable to defer striping of a bike
lane until the roadway is scheduled for resurfacing.
. Maintenance - Regular maintenance is a critical factor for on- and off-street
facilities. Cracked or uneven pavement, debris, low-hanging limbs, missing signs
and deteriorated striping can pose greater safety threats to a bicyclist than to a
motorist. A program to provide an appropriate level of maintenance should be a
component of any project plan, including street sweeping and repairs to cracked
pavement.
Funding
Most federal funding support for bikeway projects in the TMA has come from the
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) or STEP programs. However, both of these
programs have drawbacks with respect to implementing a regional bikeway network.
. CMAQ - A problem with the use of CMAQ funding is the difficulty in
calculating air quality benefits from bikeway projects. This deficiency could be
addressed by the availability of better data and tools for projecting facility usage.
H-GAC has completed the before stage of a before and after study to determine
prototypical usage levels for facilities in a variety of settings. Consideration
should be given to completing this study or developing other measures for
calculating project benefits. Such information would also be helpful in justifying
bikeway expenditures and prioritizing projects, regardless of funding source.
. STEP - It is also difficult to ensure implementation of regional bikeway
initiatives through STEP funding, since these project selection decisions are
made by TxDOT in Austin without input from the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). H-GAC will work with TxDOT to enable better local input
into the STEP project selection process.
. Safety Funds - A previously untapped source of funding for bicycle and
pedestrian improvements is federal transportation safety funds. H-GAC has
initiated a safety study in the East End of Houston using this funding source and
will pursue this funding mechanism in other areas with high incidences of bicycle
crashes.
. Blended Funding - Opportunities for blended project funding should also be
considered. For example, on-street bicycle and pedestrian accommodations could
be funded through CMAQ or STEP funds, with STP funds supporting
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 10 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
construction of vehicle lanes. Non-transportation funding options, such as the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) trails grant program and local
parks and flood control district trails initiatives, should also be pursued.
Project Selection Criteria
Aside from air quality and cost-benefit analysis, H-GAC is currently developing a set of
criteria for selecting and prioritizing bikeway projects. Further work needs to be done to
define projects that are of regional significance. Additional criteria that could be
considered include:
. Linking to major trip origins and destinations;
. Linking to transit stations;
. Connecting existing local bikeway networks and filling gaps in the regional
system; and
. Making "spot improvements" to address localized barriers and/or safety problems.
Maintaining Project Commitment
Some project sponsors have had difficulty maintaining commitments for programmed
RTP and TIP bikeway projects. Many of these lapsed projects are the result of costs
exceeding initial estimates. H-GAC will continue to stress the importance of maintaining
bikeway project commitments, especially for projects included in the State
Implementation Plan for air quality. However, other avenues of supporting local sponsors
toward the completion of these projects should be explored. Such measures may include
technical assistance, allowing a reduction in project scope to match available funding, or
providing supplemental funding in future calls for projects.
There are also inconsistencies in the level of commitment that is implied by the inclusion
of a bikeway in a local plan. If local bikeways are to be considered in the design of
connecting or intersecting facilities, the local government's commitment to developing
the facility should be clearly identified in the plan.
Recommended Actions
To address the issues, H-GAC recommends the following actions:
· Update the Regional Bikeway Planfrequently. H-GAC will encourage local
governments to submit current bikeway plans and project information on a frequent
basis to maintain an up-to-date regional bikeway plan. Plans and project information
should clearly identify the level of local commitment to developing proposed facilities.
· Support local planning efforts. H-GAC will encourage and provide assistance to
local governments with the preparation of bikeway plans.
· Promote use of consistent terminology and mapping. H-GAC will promote the use
of standard terminology and line codes for local bikeway maps.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 11 of27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
. Develop a bikeway design/conditions inventory. A more detailed inventory of
existing bikeways should be developed to determine consistency with AASHTO,
facility suitability, and any safety and maintenance problems.
. Promote appropriate design. Agency coordination between H-GAC, TxDOT and
local project sponsors, is needed to identify the most cost-effective approaches to
facility design, while maintaining consistency with AASHTO guidelines. H-GAC
will continue to develop information resources, provide training opportunities and
offer technical assistance to help enhance the level of bikeway design in the TMA.
. Include long-term maintenance in project planning. Project sponsors should make
maintenance a key component of their local planning efforts and outline their long-
term maintenance plans for projects submitted to the RTP and TIP.
. Develop data and projections of bikeway usage. H -GAC will continue to develop
data resources and tools to project use levels and air quality benefits of bikeway projects.
. Provide funding resources. H-GAC will pursue funding strategies to support
bikeway development, including increased use of CMAQ funding, providing input
for STEP project selection, use of transportation safety funding to address problem
areas, as well as exploring non-transportation funding resources.
. Improve project selection criteria. H-GAC will review its selection criteria for RTP
and TIP bikeways to better measure the regional significance of a projects.
. Maintain project commitments. H-GAC will consider available mechanisms for
maintaining project commitments, including reducing project scope when costs exceed
initial estimates and/or providing supplemental funding in subsequent calls for projects.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 12 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects within the Current TIP
WEST WHITE OAK BAYOU TRAIL
EXTENSION
CONSTRUCT COLUMBIA TAP RAIL TO
TRAIL BIKEWAY
iCITY OF
'HOUSTON
:CITY OF
'HOUSTON
[CIiYoF
HOUSTON
o I-Jul-04
$3,075,294.00.
$.2,9741 U9.09! ...
$.1,29_2,00Q,001...
0912-71-545
01-0ct-04
:0912-71-544
01-Mar-04
CONSTRUCT SIMS BAYOU TRAIL
'HARRIS
'COUNTY
iPRECINCT 2 :0912-71-548
iCIITOF'l.AKE'- -,;."..^.---- ,._~_...''''--^
JACKSON 0912-31-143
i
,,~__.__....___."'.__..__.~~,.._ J
_ . .~~~"-~2?QgL
o I-J an-05
CONSTRUCT HIKE & BIKE TRL
'--'^-'~---- .".,----.-..-.--- ._-'''--------_.._._._......__..~--
_ ~7Q~12~Q~Qol. ...Q!:l'!!:'Q1__-,
__S:9~STRUg!I~_~:I3..IgI&'\lL .___..__ ,.--
BIKE SE HOUSTON ON-STREET BIKEWAY
NETWORK (INSIDE LP 610) (TCM SIP
__c::9.MMIIMJ;:1'-lI2 ". ...- -.-
BIKE TRAIL ON BUFF ALO BAYOU
PARALLEL TO MEMORIAL DR & ALLEN
PKWY
HIKE & BIKE TRAIL (HOUSTON HERITAGE
CORRIDOR BAYOU TRAILS WEST,
~E_Ci~1'-lI)) __ .. ... ... - ..
CONSTRUCT HIKE & BIKE TRAIL (PHASE
1091_2~n~i~9_.. .. J~2 ...
iCITY OF
iHOUSTON
01-0ct-04 i
- .,'" .--~.'-"'^"" .-----.'''-.--...-...---1
.. _ g2~51000.00:.
'CITY OF
HOUSTON
$2,8~0,05Q. 001....
01-0ct-04
10912-71-503
,CITY OF
l!9Y.~.IQN
,CITY OF
BA YTOWN
,""".,.--- ,"- ,'.,,'
CITY OF
HOUSTON
.01:?e.p~05. .
$3,4~11~}6.QQ;.
'0912-71-505
$.1~?.6&~Q,00~ . ..Ol:~ep:Qi
$4,889,000.001
01-0ct-04
ON-STREET BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES @
LAKE ROBBINS & WOODSTEAD
- -_. ',-
]0912-71-433
g350,00Q.OOI
01 ~~ep~03 ..
THE DISTRICT 0912-37-160
CITY OF
:BAYTOWN 0912-71-697
iCITY OF
LEAGUE CITY 10976-07-006
CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN PATH ALONG
GOOSE CREEK $1,361,919.001
CONSTRUCT HIKEIBIKE TRAIL ALONG SH .
96 $757,500.00;
CONSTRUCT 5' SIDEWALK TO PROVIDE A
CONNECTION BETWEEN US 90A AND
SEABOURNE CREEK PARK
01-Sep-05
o I-Sep-04
CITY OF
ROSENBERG iOI8?~01~030
,CITY OF
'HQUSTON ]0912-71-655
'c:.!IYQF:ALVIN :0912-31-121
,CITY OF
ANGLETON '0912-31-122
CITY OF
IGALVESTON '0912-73-082
'CITY OF
HOUSTON
'CITY OF
LEAGUE CITY
. $ 1,110,398,00;
01-Jun-04
01-Nov-04
_........~w ___." . ..__._'.___"_'~"
01-0ct-04
$601,000.00
$?Z~,12g.001.
$658,175.00
W HOUSTON ON-STREET BIKEWAY PH 2
-.- -'''''''-,-.,'.-'' ,,---~. . ". -,-- ' ..
CONSTRUCT MUSTANG TRAIL SYSTEM
,_., ,_._.n .. - -_ ,__,_",,,_,_,,,,,~"'~__'_" ~._-~.-.,., .....~...."....._--~
CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN W ALKW A Y IN
ANGLETON
,. _..' .._....._._~.....__..
CONSTRUCT RAILROAD PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAY
CONSTRUCT BIKEIPEDESTRIAN TIE-IN AT
TERRY HERSHEY PARK IN HOUSTON
01-0ct-04
".....-.,. ..'-~_.""."...^_...~..., ...~~-<
$220,000.00[
o I-J an-05
01-Nov-04
$1,205,402.001
$254,956.00
,0912-71-701
01-Jan-05
,- ".""'--. "J
,
CONSTRUCT PED & BIKE TRAIL: PH 2
;0912-73-085
HARRIS
,COUNTY
:PRECINCT 3
METRO
CITY OF
:HOUSTON
CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE
TRAIL
FY 2000 BIKE RACKS ON METRO BUSES
-" - ~,. . -
01-Nov-04
. 0 1 ~i\ug~O~_. .. J
$610,969,001
$1,500,000.00
i0912-71-702
0912-00-215
$5,027,858.001
01-Nov-04
CONSTRUCT HIKE & BIKE TRAIL
0912-71-631
Page 13 of 27
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
BIKE & HIKE TRAIL THRU HERMAN
BROWN PARK PHASE 2
'CITY OF
HOUSTON
CITY OF
HOUSTON
CITY OF
,HOUSTON
CITY OF
HOUSTON
'CITY OF
HOUSTON
.--- ..~._~,..-..-.~.__..-,_.,.
$932,000.00[
01-0et-04
'0912-71-591
$3,144,293.00;
01-Nov-04
CONSTRUCT BIKE TRAIL
,0912-71-647
...,
,
,
I
$4,875,822~00+
01-Nov-04
CONSTRUCT BIKE TRAIL
. u.
i0912-71-432
01-Nov-04
$705,657.00).. ..
$7,697,000.00,
CONSTRUCT BIKE TRAIL
HIKE & BIKE TRAIL ALONG HALLS
BAYOU
..-...." '. _.--,
;0912-71-643
'0912-71-620
~., ......... om_. . v....
01-Dee-05
'.'__" ._^~I
'CITY OF
BA YTOWN
$906,2~O~00i .Q1~~~p:()~_
CONSTRUCT HIKE/BlKE TRAIL
, .... "... ...w......"".~.....,____....___._^'...,........_m_."......'......----,.".",--.,.-.. ."------,-".-."
,0912-71-698
VINCE BAYOU PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE TRAIL IN PASADENA $1}~2?9~8.0Q
,CITY OF
PASADENA '0912-71-793
.,.,--...".-.......""'--.
iGREA TER
iGREENSPOINT
,MANAGEMENT,
DISTRICT
iQ9MP). '0912-71-797
01-Nov-03
12' WIDE CONCRETE SHARED USE PATH:
GREENS BAYOU TRAIL SYS IN GREATER
.9,RE~~~~OINT_ MGIPJSIB:I_~I_..__._.._ __ _,__J2,.8~??Q3~~O.0!
12' WIDE CONCRETE SHARED USE PATH:
BUFFALO HERITAGE CORRIDOR SHARED
. U~~ TRJ..I~.lliJ!Ql!~TQ~,_, ... . .,_", _.. $3, 7.~1,2~1~QQi
12' WIDE CONCRETE SHARED USE PATH:
PHASE I SHARED USE PATH - TREES FOR
HOUSTON $1,140,810~OO
12' WIDE CONCRETE SHARED USE PATH:
COLUMBIA TAP - UNION ST A nON TRAIL
IN CITY OF HOUSTON $883,784.00.
i
<>1-.l'io.:'::O~__,J
,
01-Nov-03
...... . . ...._..... "H_"~"'~
ic:i1}',o,flIouston 0912- 71- 799
'CITY OF
HOUSTON 0912-71-800
Ql-'.A..llg:04
CITY OF
HOUSTON ,0912-71-801
,CITY OF
HOUSTON /
WESTCHASE
MANAGEMENT '
DISTRICE
(WMA) '0912-71-803
01-Nov-04
12' WIDE CONCRETE SHARED USE PATH:
WESTCHASE DISTRICT TRAIL - NORTH-
CITY OF HOUSTON & WESTCHASE MGT
DISTRICT IN HOUSTON $4,901,088.00)
8' TO 16' WIDE SHARED USE PATH:
HERMANN PARK TRAIL IMPROVE-
FRIENDS OF HERMANN PARK
01-Mar-04
,CITY OF
'HOUSTON
HARRIS
,COUNTY
PRECINCT
THREE
01-Nov-03
$2,499,300.00,
0912-71-805
12' WIDE SHARED USE PATH: SOUTH
MAYDE CREEK PED/BIKE FACILITY -
HARRIS CO PRECINCT 3
MEDICAL CENTER GALLERIA PH 3 BIKE
,LEAGUE CITY 0912-71-811,...TRAIL
HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL (HOUSTON
HERRITAGE CORRIDOR BAYOU TRAILS
,0912-71-822 . .EA_~T,SEGMENT
HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL (HOUSTON
HERRITAGE CORRIDOR BAYOU TRAILS
iEAST,SE(]rv1~NT,?) ..
HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL (HOUSTON
HERRIT AGE CORRIDOR BAYOU TRAILS
EAST, SEGMENT 3)
. $2,I08,036.0Q,_ .. Qk.A..1Jg-.~_.,
... $500,000:().oj.0.!.~S~p:QL_. ..., i
0912-71-808
CITY OF
IHOUSTON
;
O~:~ep~O?_ ...___!
~!,826~6??:O.o1
CITY OF
'HOUSTON
$940,250.001
01-.S~p:05
0912-71-823
CITY OF
HOUSTON
$641.828.00'
01-Sep-05
0912-71-824
Total Cost of Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects
within the current TIP
$84,879,186.00)
Page 14 of 27
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects within the Draft 2025 RTP
i
CITY OF LEAGUE i
CITY
2221
!CITY OF LEAGUE l
CITY 2222
CITY OF LEAGUE i
!CITY 2223
iCITY OF
MISSOURI CITY 2269
,CITY OF
MISSOURI CITY 2273
,.
,CITY OF
!MISSOURI CITY 2281
'CITY OF
!HOUSTON 2795
iTHE DISTRICT 3050
CITY OF
HOUSTON 5050
,CITY OF
MISSOURI CITY 5054
CITY OF
iMISSOURI CITY 5055
CITY OF LEAGUE
CITY 5057
,CITY OF
!MI~_SQlJ~. CITY
'GREATER
GREENSPOINT
MANAGEMENT
iDISTRICT
CONSTRUCT HIKE & BIKE
CONSTRUCT HIKE & BIKE
RESTRIPE ROADWAY FOR ON-STREET BIKE
LANE
CONSTRUCT HIKE & BIKE TRAIL
CONSTRUCT HIKE & BIKE TRAIL
PAVE HILLS BAYOU TRAIL
PE/EA, ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION OF
TRANSITWAY, WATERWAY AND PEDESTRIAN
AMENITIES.
BIKE TRAILILANE ON ROADS & RR ROW
CQNSTRUCT HIKE/BIKETRAIL (SEG 1)
CONSTRUCT HIKE/BIKE TRAIL (SEG3)
CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK ALONG
FM518
6078 MISSOURI CITY BIKE/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
CONSTRUCT SEG. 2 OF 12' WIDE CONCRETE
HIKE & BIKE TRAIL, ASSOCIATED PED
7127.BRIDgE~~ SEA Tl]\/Qj\@):~AJ\lDS<::.:\Pl]\/g.
CITY OF
HOUSTON 7544 CONSTRUCT BIKEIHIKE TRAIL
PORT OF
'GALVESTON 7576 21ST ST PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
,CITY OF LA COMPREHENSIVE BIKE/PED TRAIL SYSTEM
,PORTE 7633 FOR CITY OF LA PORTE
CONSTRUCT 4'-WIDE CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN
HARRIS COUNTY' 7637 W ALKW A Y
HARRIS COUNTY' 7640 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE FACILITY
HARRIS COUNTY i 7641 BICYCLE TIE IN FACILITY
HARRIS COUNTY 7644 PEDESTRIAN W ALKW A Y
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
$3~4,0()0.0()__. .()I:~~:LQ___
$600,000.00 01-Jan-l0
$192,000.00 01-Jan-12
$20,300.00 o I-Sep-05
$2,376,000.00 o I-Jan-04
$2,397,600.00 01-Jan-04
$3,~80,000.00 01-Nov-04
$10,644,200.00 01-Dee-05
$2,136,000.00 01-Jan-04
$2,795,600.00 01-Jan-04 ..,
$3,004,400.00 01-Nov-04
$425,000.00 01-Jan-08
$7,~~5,000.00 o I-Jul-04
$114.5.0,000.00 01-Jan-04
"., __, .,_mn_.~n___'~,__'
$850,000.00 01-Jan-23
$965,000.00 02-Jan-23
$1,980,000.00 01-Jan-23
$1,320,479.00 01-Jan-23
$636,426.00 o I-Jan-23
$1,255,628.00 o I-Jan-23
$207,900.00 o I-Jan-23
Page 15 of27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
HARRIS COUNTY! 7645 PEDESTRIAN W ALKW A Y $74,040.00 01-Jan-23
HARRIS COUNTY i 7646 ,PEDESTRIAN W ALKW A Y $1,419,00Q.00 01-Jan-23
GREATER
iGREENSPOINT
MANAGEMENT HIKE & BIKE TRAIL SYSTEM PACKAGE OF
'DISTRICT 7647 PROJECTS $20,000,000.00 o 1-Jan-23
iHARRIS COUNTY i 7768 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL $31348,000.00 01-Jan-23
'HARRIS COUNTY' 7769 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL I $2?~7~,000.00 " o 1-Jan-23
,~,.. ....._..__._...v'.,."_.."...'"
iHARRIS COUNTY, 7770 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL $1,264,800.00 01-Jan-23
CONNECTS WOODFOREST & PINE TRAILS
SUBDIVISIONS WI COUNTY COURT, ADMIN
HARRIS COUNTY' 7771 FACILITIES & COLLEGE $1,3Q~,000.00 01-Jan-23
HARRIS COUNTY' 7772 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL F,190,iQQ:QQ, " o 1-Jan-23
HARRIS COUNTY I 7773 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL $2,418,000.00 o 1-Jan-23
, '
'HARRIS COUNTY' 7774 HIKE & BIKE TRAILS m L $1,488,000.00 o 1-Jan-23
>.,,_.. V'"''
'HARRIS COUNTY 7775 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL g:!55,2QO.00 , 01-Jan-23
._.___H ...._.. _____ ..., ,-.-...'_..,....-..--...,............
DOWNTOWN CONNECTION (2.2 MILES) TWO
SECTIONS: 1 ST FROM DOWNTOWN AT
SESQUICENTENNIAL PARK, ALONG WHITE OAK
BAYOU TO HOGAN CONNECTION THE
EXISTING SEGMENT OF WHITE OAK BAYOU
TRAIL. 2ND: FROM EXISTING TRAIL ALONG
'HARRIS COUNTY 7776 BAYOU TO HEIGHTS. $1,636,800.00 01-Jan-23
HARRIS COUNTY 7777 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL $114881OOQ.00 01-Jan-23
. w____.., ..._ "___".__~ -I
'HARRIS COUNTY 7779 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL $}z.48 8~000:QO 01-Jan-23
~.~ ~_.... .._~
iHARRIS COUNTY 7814 HIKE & BIKE TRAIL $1,488,000.00 01-Jan-23
,GREA TER
GREENSPOINT CONSTRUCTSEG.10FI2'CONCRETE HIKE &
MANAGEMENT BIKE TRAIL WI ASSOCIATED PED BRIDGES,
DISTRICT 9355 SEATING AND LANDSCAPING $1,450,000.00 o 1-J an-04
'METRO 11433 BIKE RACKS ON BUSES $1,870,000.00 o 1-Sep-06
STRA TEGIC INVESTMENT TO ENHANCE
PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE SAFETY WITHIN HIGH-
ACTIVITY AREAS, STRATEGIC PLACEMENT OF
H-GAC 11194 ,SIDEWAI,.KS,CROS~~1\LK~ '" $181 QOO~OOO:OO 01-Feb-14
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 16 of27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
lSTRA TEGIC INVESTMENT TO ENHANCE
PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE SAFETY WITHIN HIGH-!
ACTIVITY AREAS, STRATEGIC PLACEMENT OF
i~II)E:~A~I(S)C~QSS\\T ;\bI(S~E1:C. . gOOO~OQ:90 ..
iH-GAC
Total Estimated Cost of PedestrianlBicycle Projects
within the Draft 2025 RTP $117,101,773.00
Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects listed in various CIPs within the TMA
Project Project
Number Proiect Descriotion Sponsor Total Cost Dates
Design and construct Hike and
Bike Trails throughout the City of
N-0420 Houston City of Houston $91,070,000 2004-2008
Design and construct bikeway trail
managed by the US Corps of
Engineers in conjunction with the City of
N-0420S Sims Bayou Improvements OHouston $4,300,000 2004-2008
Design and construct Hike and
Bike Trail along Buffalo Bayou City of
N-0420T from Sabine to Bagby. OHouston $15,707,000 2004-2008
South Mayde Creek Hike and
Bike- Phase I Harris County $509,000 2001-2005
South Mayde Creek Hike and
Bike-Phase II Harris County $2,157,000 2001-2005
Terry Hershey Park-Hike and Bike
Trail to METRO Park & Ride Harris County $1,255,600 2001-2005
Terry Hershey Park-Pedestrian
Bridge-East of Dairy Ashford Harris County $698,000 2001-2005
City of
R029 Armand Bayou Hike & Bike Pasadena $2,200,000 2002-2007
Strawberry to Burke/Crenshaw City of
R031 Hike and Bike Trail Pasadena $1,492,000 2002-2007
City of
R033 Holly Bay Sour Pasadena $225,000 2002-2007
Village Grove (Armand Bayou) City of
R034 Pedestrian Bridge Pasadena $225,000 2002-2007
City of
R035 Vince Bayou Trail Pasadena $2,625,000 2002-2007
Total $122,463,600
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 17 of27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Guidelines for Accommodating Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Summary
The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) has developed these guidelines (see
Table One, page 28) to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are considered in the
planning and design of future Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) roadway projects, in accordance with federal requirements.
Under these guidelines, H-GAC proposes that consideration of pedestrian and bicyclist
factors should occur not later than the preliminary engineering phase of project development.
Sponsors should document the considerations and identify any planned pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations as part of their submittal ofthe project as a candidate for the TIP. The
guidelines provide recommended accommodations for various types of roadways and off-street
facilities.
Purpose and Need
Better accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists in the region's transportation system
is needed to improve the safety of nonmotorized travelers. In recent years, the eight-county
Houston-Galveston Transportation Management Area (TMA) has averaged more than 1,000 crashes
per year involving pedestrians or bicyclists. Additionally, the 2000 U.S. Census reported that
more than 7 percent of households in the TMA do not have access to an automobile. Some of the
school, work, transit, shopping and other destinations for these households may be located on
major roadways and will be difficult to safely reach on foot or by bicycle if adequate accommodations
do not exist.
A roadway system that is safer for pedestrians and bicyclists will benefit those users who
have no other choices, as well as those who do. Providing safe accommodations can allow people
so inclined to substitute pedestrian or bicycle trips for certain short vehicle trips, providing
congestion mitigation and air quality benefits. Improved accommodations within the roadway
system will also provide better pedestrian and bicycle connections to trails and recreation
facilities, enhancing the region's livability.
The key to successfully integrating pedestrian and bicycle accommodations into roadway
projects is to start early in the planning process, especially where new right of way (ROW) must
be acquired. Effective accommodations are more difficult to introduce once a project's ROWand
budget are fixed and design flexibility is limited. Retrofits, which are more costly and may result
in substandard facilities and/or diminished roadway performance, can also be avoided through
early planning.
Pedestrian-Bicycle Considerations
The following factors should be weighed when considering pedestrian and bicyclist
accommodations in roadway projects:
. Pedestrian and bicycle demand
. Documented safety problems
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 18 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
. Surrounding land uses, trip generators and transit facilities
. Project impact on existing/planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities
. Facility suitability
. Ability to maintain roadway performance
. Design and ROW constraints
. Budget constraints
Successfully evaluating pedestrian and bicycle transportation needs during the planning
process should result in a project design that can cost-effectively serve the needs of motorists and
non-motorized users.
Another important consideration is whether the roadway is one where pedestrian and
bicycle travel will be permitted (basic accommodations), versus one where it will be encouraged
(enhanced accommodation). Basic pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are intended to
provide safe access by pedestrians and bicyclists between their trip origins and destination. These
basic accommodations also serve as links to bikeways and other facilities designed for heavier
pedestrian and bicycle usage. Factors that may warrant an enhanced level of accommodation
include the following:
. Project area is densely developed and/or has known pedestrian and bicycle travel
demandlhigh incidence of crashes
. Project is on/provides access to/crosses an existing/planned bicycle facility.
. Project is in a special district where pedestrian and bicycle travel is being actively
promoted.
. Project provides access to known generators of pedestrian and bicycle travel, such as
schools, parks, and transit facilities.
Choosing Appropriate On-Street Accommodations
Basic Accommodations
In rural or less intensively developed suburban areas, a paved shoulder provides
accommodation for stranded motorists and the occasional pedestrian, as well as bicyclists. If the
area is expected to eventually urbanize, sufficient ROW should be obtained to provide for the
eventual addition of sidewalks. In urban settings, sufficient ROW for a minimum 5-foot sidewalk
with 2-foot buffer is recommended, with crosswalks provided at reasonable intervals, as dictated
by surrounding land uses and trip generators. Construction of the sidewalk can occur when demand
dictates. A wide outside travel lane will accommodate proficient bicyclists.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 19 of27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Enhanced Accommodations
For facilities where there is greater pedestrian and bicyclist demand, or where these
modes are encouraged, enhanced accommodation is necessary. For pedestrians, wider sidewalks
and buffers, trees/landscaping, and traffic calming measures may be appropriate. Enhanced on-
street bicycle accommodations generally fall into one of three types of bikeways:
. Signed Shoulder Bike Routes - Roadways with a wide shoulder, striping, and
signage indicating bike route. Signed shoulder routes are most appropriate for rural or
less developed suburban areas.
. Signed Shared Roadway (Signed Bike Route)- Roadways with lower traffic
volumes/speeds, good pavement conditions, and delineated by bike route signage but
not striping. These facilities are generally best in neighborhood settings.
. Bike Lane - On-street bikeways, whereas a segment of roadway has been designated
with pavement markings, bike route signage and intersection treatments. Bike lanes
provide access to land uses along roadways and allow for longer trips within
urbanized areas.
Right of Way Considerations
The lack of sufficient ROW poses the greatest challenge for integrating pedestrian and
bicycle facilities into roadway design. For example, expanding a thoroughfare from four to six
lanes within a typical 100-foot ROW can limit on-road accommodations for bicyclists and present
conflicts between ADA-compliant sidewalks and the placement of utilities.
Under Texas law, counties are allowed to require up to 120 feet of ROW for major
thoroughfares, and can exceed this limit if such a requirement is consistent with a transportation
plan adopted by the metropolitan planning organization in the region. Municipalities may set their
own ROW requirements through their major thoroughfare plans and development ordinances.
H-GAC encourages counties and cities to consider whether their ROW policies allow for
pedestrian and bicycle accommodation, as well as adequate facility design in general.
Even basic pedestrian and bicycle accommodations may not be feasible on retrofits and
other reconstruction projects with limited available ROW. However, the following measures can
still improve the safety of pedestrian and bicycle users of these facilities:
. Pedestrian Accommodations
Remove physical obstacles within an existing sidewalk, such as utilities.
Provide additional or enhanced crosswalk/signal treatment.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 20 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
. Bicycle Accommodations
Avoid the placement of seams within the outside lane.
Use bicycle-compatible storm grates and utility covers.
Provide smooth pavement.
In locations with high pedestrian and bicycle activity or serious safety concerns, some
additional measures may be warranted, including reducing the width of the median and/or interior
lane(s) to provide for a wide outside lane or a sidewalk.
Choosing Appropriate Off-Street Accommodations
There are situations where off-street accommodations may better serve the needs of
pedestrians and bicycles. For example, a major highway may provide the most direct alignment
between major trip generators/attractions, but the speed of the roadway and lack of available
shoulder may not support bicycle travel. In these situations, a parallel off-road, shared-use path
could address travel needs for both pedestrians and bicyclists.
When designing off-street facilities, it is important to minimize the number of conflict
points between pedestrians/bicyclists and turning vehicles. Off-road or behind the curb facilities
are safest where there are widely spaced intersections and a limited amount of driveways for the
shared-use path to cross. Off-road facilities should be designed in compliance with the guidelines
developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). Figure 4 summarizes these guidelines.
In cases where it is not feasible to provide off-street accommodations immediately
adjacent to the roadway, a nearby parallel on- or off-street facility may provide sufficient
accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians within the corridor. In these instances, it is
important that project planners consider how pedestrians and bicyclists will access the land uses
on the roadway that does not have direct accommodation.
Use of H-GAC's Guidelines in Project Development
A copy ofH-GAC's Guidelines Jar Accommodating Pedestrians and Bicyclists will
accompany future calls for RTP and TIP projects, and pedestrian/bicycle training will be provided
at H-GAC project development workshops. Sponsors should consult the guidelines when
considering pedestrian and bicycle accommodations for RTP/TIP projects, such as new roadways,
widening of existing roadways and major roadway reconstruction. Other projects for which pedestrian
and bicycle considerations may be appropriate include new roadways, major roadway
reconstruction, widening of existing roadways and resurfacing projects.
Ideally, pedestrian and bicyclist considerations should begin during the MIS, if one is
required for the project. For projects that do not require an MIS, pedestrian and bicycle considerations
should be part of the project's Preliminary Engineering (PE) study. Sponsors should also list the
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations that will be included in the final design as part of their
submittal of the project as a candidate for the TIP. Figure 1 illustrates this process.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 21 of27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Preliminary Engineering Considerations
Figure 2 is a checklist of factors that should be reviewed as part of the consideration of
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and included in the PE report. H-GAC will provide
assistance, upon request, to the sponsor in obtaining this information and may offer
comments.
TIP Submittal
H-GAC has initiated a policy requiring sponsors to have conducted their PE and, if
possible, their Environmental Analysis (EA) before a project can be considered for
inclusion in the TIP. Under these guidelines, sponsors will be asked to include documentation
within their PE/EA of the results of their pedestrian and bicycle considerations.
Planned pedestrian and bicycle accommodations should also be described in the TIP
submittal, using the checklist shown in Figure 3. Sponsors should refer to the Design
Guidelines in Table 1 for recommended on-street or off-street accommodations for
different types of facilities. These guidelines are not rigid requirements, but are intended to
present project sponsors with a range of suitable accommodations for different facility
types and contexts.
During its review of TIP candidate projects, H-GAC staff may offer consultation or
provide comments to the project sponsor to help accommodate pedestrian and bicycle
travel within the project constraints.
Future Steps
Consideration should be given in future R TP updates to mechanisms that encourage
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on RTP and TIP projects. These could include
bonus points for projects that include accommodations or revisions to the benefit-cost
calculation so that the cost of the accommodations does not reduce the project's
competitiveness.
Opportunities to provide alternative mechanisms for funding pedestrian and bicycle
improvements within roadway projects should also be explored. These could include
encouraging blended proj ects, where additional costs of pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations are borne by Congestion Mitigation! Air Quality (CMAQ). However,
based on the rules of the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (STEP),
anything with STEP funding must remain as stand alone projects.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 22 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Figure 1
H-GAC PEDESTRIAN-BICYCLE CONSIDERATION PROCESS
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
sponsor assesses pedestrian-
bicycle factors, determines
appropriate accommodation level
Project Evaluation
--
.....
"
\
\
,
I
/
/
..-
-....
Sponsor refers to guidelines for project type
to determine appropriate accommodation
New/Expanded
ROW
Retrofit
TIP SUBMITTAL
Sponsor identifies pedestrian-
bicycle facilities in project
- on street
- off street
- none, due to constraints
Include in cost estimate
TIP Project Evaluation
FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
H-GAC may
provide assistance
or comments
-
.....
"
,
\
\ H-GAC may
~ provide assistance
/ or comments
/
..-
....
....
----
Page 23 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Figure 2
H-GAC
Pedestrian and Bicycle Consideration Checklist
The following checklist outlines the factors project sponsors should evaluate in considering
appropriate accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists in their roadway projects.
Sponsor:
Project Name and location:
In Urbanized Area? (Y/N)_
Type of Project:
Check one:
New/Expanded ROW
Retrofit
Please include the following information in the description of Project Purpose, Scope and Need:
1. Pedestrian and bicycle travel demand in proiect area
a. Counts or observations (if available) of pedestrian and bicycle activity
b. Pedestrian and bicycle crash data (if available)
c. Current/projected population and employment
d. Number of households without a vehicle (most recent Census)
2. Relationship to existing or planned pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities.
a. Regional Bikeway Plan
b. Pedestrian-Bicycle District
c. Local pedestrian or bicycle plan
d. Other relevant local plans
3. Proiect context
a. General land use patterns in project area
b. Significant pedestrian and bicycle trip generators accessed by the project
i. Schools
11. Parks and recreation facilities
111. Neighborhood retail
lV. Transit
v. Other
Upon request, H-GAC will assist the project sponsor in compiling this information.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 24 of 27
Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Figure 3
H-GAC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodation Checklist
The following checklist outlines the types of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations that should
be address in the PE/EA and included in the project cost estimate.
Sponsor:
Project Name and location:
In Urbanized Area? (Y/N)_
Type of Project:
Check one:
New/Expanded ROW
Retrofit
1. Please include evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle factors from RTP Project Purpose,
Scope and Need (if available) and describe significant changes in any of these conditions
within the project area.
2. From the following list, please identify and describe any pedestrian and bicycle facilities
being considered in project planning (if applicable or known). Costs for these facilities
should also be included in the project cost estimate.
Pedestrian Facilities
SidewalkslWidth
Buffer/Width
Over/underpass accommodations
Bridge accommodations
Intersection/median accommodations (if known)
Off-road or other accommodations (describe)
Bicycle Facilities
Wide outside lane/width
Shoulder or bicycle lane/width
Over/underpass accommodations (if applicable/known)
Bridge accommodations (if applicable/known)
Intersection/median accommodations (if known)
Off-road or other accommodations (describe)
3. Please describe any constraints that restrict or limit the inclusion of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities on this project.
4. If available, would additional ROW provide opportunities to provide recommended and
desirable levels of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. (Y/N)
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 25 of 27
~
Ii:
!:
o
.~
._ 1::
(.) 0
!: 0..
::l '"
o ~
U ....
",E-<
11)-
.... '"
< B
B '50
.... II)
~p:::
.!:;!:l
"'0
ON
S:E-<
E~
g~
::to
en
-
,~
"0
>-
o
"C
C
C'll
en
c
C'll
'i:
-
en
CI)
"C
CI)
D..
...
o
-
en
c
~o
CI):;::
-;::C'll
~"C
C'110
I-E
E
o
o
o
<(
"C
CI)
"C
C
CI)
E
E
o
o
CI)
0::
~
C)
I
::I:
ell
Q)
ell
ell
III
Q.
...
Q)
>
o
ell
C
o
..
()
Q)
ell
...
Q)
-
C
ell
Q)
ell
ell
III
Q.
...
Q)
"
C
::;)
ell
C
o
..
Q.
Q)
()
><
W
-
ell
Q)
t>>
"
'C
m
...
o
,-
III
:!:
...
o
ro
.;::
C CI)
ot
C/)
CI) CI)
.c ~
I- '0
~ .. CO
CO C/)-
.c 012 Ol
CJ) C ::l .5
.......ooe;;
T"" 10 ....-
I ,,><
T""CCI)CI)
~ '~g.~
-" Ol-
CI) CO 0_ .5
C/) 0 C/) CO
::>O::~E
- C/)
CO CI)
C/)Ol
Olc
.5 CO
C/).c
;i-C/)~
:= e CI)
'0 0 c
CO CI) .-
~"....... '..
CO C/)
'C 0.
o.E
e ~
0. I
o.:t::
CO 0
~;
'u
III
LL
-
ca
'C
Q) ...
1:: 0
<Co
~~
III 0
"U
C ...
o 0
~ 'jij'
en:!:
0:::.;2
t>>
C
o
ca
ell
""
III C
o III
c::: ell
Q) Q) ell
t>> iV >-
J!!u;~
5 t Q)
.:Lcat
-
ell
Q)
m
ell
ca
'C
Q)
1::
<C
ca
Q.
'u
C
'C
a.
ell
Q)
()
..
()
III
...
a.
r-
N
'+-<
o
~
N
II)
b.O
'"
CI..
'"
II)
.S
~
's
o
.~
'"
II)
o
"0
~
~
Ii:
~
~
II)
~
a:i
'"
B
'50
II)
p:::
u
><
:.a
5
0..
0..
<
H Houston-Galveston Area Council
DRAFT 2025 Regional Transportation Plan
Figure 4
Design Guidelines for Off-Street Shared-use Paths
As defined by AASHTO's 1999 Guide for Accommodating Bicyclists, a shared-use path
is "a bikeway that is physically separated from motorized vehicle traffic by an open space or
barrier, and can be within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way"
(AASHTO 1999). While these facilities are primarily designed for bicyclists, however, other
users include pedestrians, joggers, dog walkers, people pushing baby carriages, persons in
wheelchairs, in-line skaters, and skate boarders. While shared-use paths can serve as a
transportation system for non-motorized modes, they function best when integrated with a system
of on-street facilities such as bike lanes, wide outside lanes, paved shoulders and bike routes.
General design guidelines for shared-use paths include:
. For most conditions, a paved width of 10 feet; if bicycle traffic and general use is expect
to be low, 8 feet is sufficient; however, when substantial use is anticipated, a width of 12
feet is desirable.
. A 5 foot-wide buffer between shared-use paths and adjacent roadway is desirable to
distinguish the independence of the facility for bicyclists and motorists. If a buffer is not
available, a barrier of 3.5 feet is recommended to provide separation.
. A minimum 2 feet of wide graded area (l :6 slope) is recommended for both sides of the
path, 3 feet or more is desirable to provide clearance from lateral and vertical
obstructions. Vertical clearances of 8 to 10 feet are also recommended.
. Grades on shared-use paths should be kept to a minimum during long inclines, however,
these can exceed 5 percent for shorter sections to minimize impacts to adjacent properties
and maintain reasonable costs. While ADA recommends grades between 5 percent and 8
percent, some design flexibility may be required to overcome obstacles.
. Reinforced concrete materials are recommended for use in pathway construction for
increased strength and durability; for projects that are not within a floodplain, asphalt
may be sufficient but may require a greater commitment to maintaining the facility.
· Signage to alert trail users of intersections, steep grades or sharp turns is recommended
for all facilities, however, it is best to maintain limited quantities of signage as to
preserve the natural environment and visual benefits of shared-use paths.
Appendix C Regional Bikeway Plan and Design Guidelines
Page 27 of 27
TEXAS RECREATION AND PARKS ACCOUNT
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
Eligibility Criteria (effective for July 2005 applications):
. The ceiling for sponsor unreimbursed expenses for active projects is raised from $1 million to $2
million.
. Metropolitan areas may now submit and receive funding for multiple projects within a single
grant category (except for Community Outdoor Outreach Program, Small Community, and
Recreational Trails grants).
Comprehensive Park & Recreation Master Plans (effective January 27,2005):
. Plans should now be effective for 10 years (up from 5 years).
. Separate priority needs lists may be provided for outdoor and indoor needs.
Acquisition (effective January 27,2005):
. The waiver of retroactivity is now effective for 5 fiscal years (up from 3), with a possibility of
extension.
Project Agreements (Contracts) (effective January 27, 2005):
. Contracts will be processed as soon as possible after Parks & Wildlife Commission grant
approval, with outstanding documentation to be submitted prior to reimbursement of project
expenses.
. Contract documents updated to reflect approved administrative changes.
Community Outdoor Outreach Program (effective for February 2006 applications)
. Application deadlines are now February 1 (formerly March 1) and October 1 of each year.
Recreational Trails Grant Program (effective January 27, 2005)
. Private individuals and groups may now qualify to apply for motorized trail grants.
PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTERPLAN GUIDELINES
TEXAS RECREATION & PARKS ACCOUNT
(Effective January 27, 2005)
The following guidelines have been developed to
help local governments prepare park, recreation, and
open space master plans in accordance with the
Texas Recreation & Parks Account (TRP A) manual.
Points may be received through the applicable
"Project Priority Scoring System" for projects which
meet priorities identified in Department-approved,
locally-endorsed parks, recreation, and open space
master plans. Please note that a master plan is not
required to participate in the grant program, nor
does Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
approval of a plan guarantee that points will be
awarded for any project
As a minimum, all master plans must meet the
requirements below for approval These guidelines
are effective upon adoption by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission on January 27, 2005. For
questions or assistance, please contact the
Recreation Grants office at 512/912-7124.
Submit plans for Recreation Grants review as
early as possible, but no later than sixty days
before the application deadline: by November
30th for the January 31st deadline and by Mav
31st for the July 31st deadline. Because of the
large number of review requests, early
submission of master plans for review and
approval is strongly encouraged. It is also
recommended that plans be reviewed by
Recreation Grants prior to submission to the
applicable governing body for final approval to
preclude the sponsor from having to obtain
additional approval from the governing body in
the event the review finds changes to the plans
are needed. Plans must be approved or in an
approvable format (including resolution of
adoption) by the November 30 and May 31
deadlines to be eligible for project priority points
during that particular review cycle.
Please provide the name and address of the
contact person in the local government
submitting the plan as well as the name and
address of the preparer, if other than the
sponsor.
The following documentation is required for
approval by Recreation Grants:
PROOF OF ADOPTION
Once plans are complete, the applicable governing
body (city council, county commissioner's court,
district or authority board) must pass a formal
resolution (or ordinance) adopting the plan and list
of priority needs.
JURISDICTION-WIDE PLAN
Plans must be comprehensive and include the
sponsor's entire area of jurisdiction, i.e., the entire
city, county, or distri~ etc. Plans may be broken
into planning areas, regions, districts or precincts, as
needed for larger connnunities or counties. All
planning areas, regions, districts, or precincts must
be included in the plan as partial plans are
unacceptable.
Plans must address the present and future needs of
the community or area, not merely short-term needs.
Plans that justify only one grant project will not be
approved.
TIME PERIOD FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Plans must cover at least a ten year period. Plans
must be updated every two years to remain
eligible. As a minimum, updates should include a
swmnary of accomplishments, new public input,
most recent inventory data, and updated needs,
priorities, and new implementation plan.
Demographics, population projections, goals and
objectives, standards, and maps should also be
updated if appropriate. Priorities should be updated
as high priority items are accomplished and lower
priorities move up. A new resolution is not required
when updating priorities; however if you change or
revise your priorities, submit a new resolution
adopting the new priorities.
Sponsors with plans approved prior to the year 2000
will be required to prepare a new plan to remain
eligible. Plans approved in 2000 and later may be
extended for another five-year period, provided the
plan meets these requirements for updates and is
approved by Recreation Grants. A completely new
plan is required every ten years.
PLAN CONTENTS
All master plans must meet the following mininmm
requirements.
I. INTRODUCTION
This section should discuss the unit of government
for which the plan is created. Include socio-
economic data; demographics on ethnicity, age, and
income as a minimum; current and projected
population figures and their source; growth or non-
growth patterns; and the government's or agency's
role in providing parks and recreation opportunities.
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Identify your parks and recreation service goals and
follow with specific objectives for each goal. These
should be given careful thought. State the time
period of the plan.
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
This section is very important so that we can
understand how you identified and prioritized your
needs. Descnbe who wrote the plan and when the
process began. Discuss planning connnittees
utilized and public input received through hearings,
meetings, and surveys. Be brief: but thorough.
N. AREA AND FACILITY CONCEPTS AND
STANDARDS
This section of the plan is also very important and
contnbutes directly to the assessment and
identification of needs. You cannot properly
identify needs without establishing local standards
and concepts.
ArealFacility standards should be determined
locally. Local standards are influenced by
preferences and available economic and natural
resources. A good source of infonnation on this
topic can be found in the National Recreation &
Park Association's Park. Recreation. Open Space &
Greenway Guidelines publication (formerly the
Recreation. Park & Open Space Standards &
Guidelines). All of the guidelines identified in this
document mayor may not apply to your community
or county. Adjustments to those standards may be
necessary to reflect your needs and resources.
Contact the NRP A at 703/858-2190 to obtain a copy
of this publication.
v.
INVENTORY
FACILITIES
AND
OF
AREAS
Assess what parks, recreation and open space areas
and facilities are currently within your system. You
should also include school and private recreational
facilities that are open to the public. If inventory
data are broken out by park, include a summary table
for all parks and facilities. This inventory
infonnation is essential for assessing needs.
VI.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
IDENTIFICA nON
AND
The following three approaches may be employed in
determining parks and recreation needs: (1) demand-
based, (2) standard-based, and (3) resource-based. A
combination of these approaches may help you more
accurately assess your needs.
The demand-based approach relies on information
gathered from participation rates, surveys, and other
information that indicates how much of the
population wants certain types of facilities.
The standard-based approach uses established
standards to determine facilities and park areas
needed to meet the needs of a given population size.
The standards may be based on demand studies, the
professional judgment of park and recreation
planners and designers, etc.
The resource-based approach examines the assets
and resources of the area for open space, parks and
recreation facilities, and defmes how these resources
can be utilized. For example - the availability of a
lake or river within an area is a resource which can
be utilized in developing a park system.
Agencies with large jurisdiction areas may wish to
divide their jurisdiction into planning areas, regions,
districts or precincts. Specific needs can then be
assessed and identified within each planning unit.
Clearly identify needs and explain the methodology
for determining them Consider both outdoor and
indoor recreation needs, if applicable.
VII. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND
PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
A priority list of needs should be ranked in order
from highest to lowest priority, and state when
the needs will be met. If your plan is broken into
specific planning areas, regions, districts or
precincts, you may prioritize needs within each of
the planning regions. Please note that, under the
new rules ~[fective January 27, 2005, only the top
five priorities can receive points on a grant
application.
Separate priority lists may be provided for indoor
and outdoor needs. Lists must be area andlor
facility specific, and be ranked according to
priority order (e.g., Outdoor Priorities: #1 = Trails;
#2 = Acquisition of neighborhood park in southeast
area of town; #3 = Restrooms in nature park; #4 =
Adult softball .fields; #5 = Tennis courts; etc.
Indoor Priorities: #1 = Indoor pool; #2 = Gym and
basketball court; #3 = Walking track; #4 = Arts
and crafts room; #5 = Meeting room; etc.).
Specific areas intended for open space acquisition
and preservation should be located on a map,
identified as a need, discussed, and prioritized in
your plan.
Where appropriate, renovation/redevelopment needs
must be discussed and may be ranked as a priority.
Renovation is defined as "to renew, make over... ".
Work on existing facilities to completely renew,
update, or modernize such facilities so the finished
product will meet present-day standards and be
comparable with newly constructed similar facilities
is classified as renovation. Redevelopment means
the removal of obsolete facilities and construction of
new ones. Repairs and/or maintenance may be listed
as a priority, but are not eligible for grant
assistance. For a more detailed discussion, see the
appropriate grant program application guide.
Identify resources for meeting your needs (e.g., city
funds, in-house labor, bonds, grants, donations, etc.),
and include a proposed timeline for accomplishing
the plan's priorities.
CAUTION! Do not just focus on short-term needs
and actions. Plan for the future also.
VIll. ILLUSTRATIONS, MAPS, SURVEYS,
ETC.
Required: City or county map or map of
jurisdiction, as appropriate.
Include maps, surveys, charts, plates, graphics, and
photographs in the plan which help explain and
support your planning process and conclusions.
_."_._..,--^--_.._".~---_.,-~..,-~_.-.~-~._-~.~--~
PROJECT PRIORITY SCORING SYSTEM
TEXAS RECREATION & PARKS ACCOUNT
OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANTS PROGRAM
(Effective for the July 31,2005 application deadline)
[All TRPA Outdoor Recreation Grant Program
applications submitted to TPWD are evaluated for
program eligibility and prioritized with the criteria,
rating factors, and points shown in the following
"Project Priority Scoring System". Each site of a
multiple site project will be scored individually
using the "Project Priority Scoring System", and
individual site scores will be weighted on a pro-rata
share of the total project score.
A project's priority ranking will depend on its score
in relation to the scores of other projects under
consideration. Scored applications are presented to
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission for
approval. Funding of projects will depend on the
availability of TRP A funds.
Projects which have been considered twice by the
Parks & Wildlife Commission without significant
alterations to raise the project score shall be
withdrawn from further consideration. ]
1. Sponsor is in full compliance at previously
assisted grant project sites and is progressing on
schedule with all active grant projects in
accordance with the "Summary of Guidelines [for
Administration of TRP A or L WCF Acquisition and
Development Projects]".
YES. If yes, the application will be scored and
presented for award consideration.
NO. If no, the application will not be scored or
considered further.
[NA. No previous grant funding received. ]
2. The exlent t-8 which the Project will {provide)
SBJisfy priority [outdoor recreation] needs, as
identified in a Department-approved, sponsor-
endorsed, jurisdiction-wide parks, recreation,
and open space master plan.
r#l priority = 5 points
#2 priority = 4 points
#3 priority = 3 points
#4 priority = 2 points
#5 priority = 1 pointl
[Cumulative totalfor priorities 1-5: _J
A. Project pro,:idcs for the #1 (and additional)
priority needs in rtmking er~er (10 20 lfflints);
#1 only
# 1 {lnd #2 only
#1 through #3
#1 through #4
#1 threugh 1t 5
# 1 through 1t6
# 1 through #7
- 10 points
- 15 points
- 16 points
- 17 points
- 18 points
- 19 points
- 20 points
Por determining other combinations where a
"priority ordered need" is missing below -# J, credit
one (1) point for each three (3) priorities mct which
are io'wer than the priority which is missing (to the
HUIXimum allowed for the criteria).
tt 1, 2, 4 5
ttJ,2, 4 6
#1,2, 5 10
- J 5 points
- 16 points
- 17 points
B. Project pro'Vides fer the ff 1 local priority need
plus additional priorities other than #2 (10 14
points);
#1 only
ffl, 3
#1, 3 4
#1, 3 5
#1,36
- 10 points
- 11 points
- 12 points
- 13 points
- J 4 points
Por determining other combinations where {l
" . 't., A .J A'" .. A'~ LU
pn.on..r' on:tcrctf, l'leO(;;l 1S m1ssmg, orC(;;I1. one \"/
point for eaeh three (3) priorities lower than priority
#J.:
ff1, 6
#1,3, 7
tt 1, 3, 6 8
- 10 points
- 11 lfflints
- 12 lfflints
C. Project pr-o'Ades for the #2 local priority need
(5 9 points);
ff2 only
- 5 points
if2, 3 - 6 peints
#2, 3 4 - 7 peints
#2, 3 5 - 8 peims
#2,36 - 9 points
For determining other combinations where a
"priority ordered need" is missing, oredit one (1)
point for each three (3) priorities lower than #2.
#2, 7
#2, 4 6
- 5 points
- 6 points
D. PFeject pr"6vidcs for lower than the #2 local
prierity need (1 1 points);
tt 3 only
#3, 4
#3, 4, 5
tt3, 4, 5, 6
- 1 pelnt
- 2 points
- 3 points
- 4 poims
For determining other cemhinations, where a
"priority ordered need" is missing, credit one (1)
pointf-er eaeh three (3) priorities lower than #3.
#4, 7
#3, 5
tt3, 6 8
- 0 points
- 1 point
- 2 points
[Land acquisition and basic support
facilities/infrastructure such as restrooms, roads &
parking, area lighting, and utilities may be
considered priority needs.) .VOTE:
Land acquisition may be considered a
priority need. "Need" also includes basic support
facilities/ infrastructure such as restrooms, roads &
parking, ar~a lighting, and utilities.
MASTERPLAN TOTAL RANGE: [1-15 points]
1 20 pis
3. The ~ent to which the Project will provide a
diversity of park and recreation opportunities
and facilities within the sponsor's jurisdiction or
intended project service area.
[One] -! point will be awarded for each type of
facility, up to 10 points. [Low impact facilities may
be grouped rather than receiving individual points. ]
.VOTE: Priorit)' points ....ill be awarded based en the
mankr of park tmd recreation
oppertlmities/facilities pre'dded.
[# Facilities: _)
FACILITIES TOTAL RANGE: 1-10 points
4. n'l} eKtent to which the Project will provide
improved water-based park and recreation
opportunities.
,+.. Project provides for the development of direct
and [appropriate] complementary park and
recreation opportunities [which do not degrade the
resource) along [existing] quality natural water
bodies [according to the following ranking (only the
highest ranking water body will receive points)] (1 -
[6] ~ points):
Gulf Coast, [or] Lake, er Reservoir (6 points)
Bay or Estuary (5 points)
River (4 points)[*)
Stream- continuous flow (3 points)
Pond (2 points)[**)
Wetland (1- [3] J. points, based on size! quality)
r*Only water bodies so named as "rivers" may
receive points under this category. All others, e.g.,
ereeks, brooks, bayous, branches, etc., are
considered "streams. "
** "Ponds" are generally man-made and no larger
than five surface acres. Points will not be awarded
for constructing ponds under this category.]
B. Project preposes the acquisition of land which
would pro)'idc nccded public access to park and
rocr-cational wfltcrs (1 5 points):
Gulf Coast, Lake, er Reservoir (5 points)
Bay or Estuary (4 peints)
Ri....cr (3 points)
Stream continuous flow (2 points)
Pond (1 point)
WATER [DEVELOPMENT] ACCESS TOTAL
RANGE: 1- [6] H points
5. The extent to which the Project will improve
the geographic distribution [or] fHHi innovative
use of park and recreation lands and facilities in
the project's intended service area or within the
sponsor's jurisdiction.
A. Project provides the Irrst public [park]
rccrcatkm opportunity in the sponsor's jurisdiction
or intended service area ([10] .},5 points); or
B. Project provides the first public park or
{silflli{icantlyJ new and different recreation
opportunities [(other than school facilities)) in the
sponsor's jurisdiction or intended service area ([1-
I 0] ~ points). .VOTE: Points awarded based on
% of construction budget (minimum of 20%),
significance to the corrnnunity, and originality[, and
calculated based on:
New & different costs X 10 = _]
Total construction costs
[NEW & DIFFERENT] DISTRIBUTION TOTAL
RANGE: [1 -10] J.S-U points
6. The extent t8 which the Project maximizes the
use of development funds for basic park and
recreation opportunities. (1 25 points)
Basic Park & Direct recreational facilities costs X
f25j[= _]
Total construction costs
.VOTE: r "Direct Recreational Facilities Costs"
include only facilities related directlv to recreation
as opposed to support facilities, except that trees
and drip irrigation may be included as recreational
items.] "Total Construction Costs" include park
and/or recreation as well as support/infrastructure
facilities, contingency, and all required program sign
costs in excess of$I,OOO.
COSTS TOTAL RANGE: 1 - 25 points
7. The extent 18 which the Project improves park
and recreation opportunities for low income,
minority, elderly, landl)or youth at-risk citizens.
A Project improves opportunities for low income
citizens ([defined by the "USDA National School
Lunch Program Income Eligibility Guidelines"
federal poverty definition midpoint] by-%). (1 - 4
points)
[Low income % X 4 = _]
B. Project improves opportunities for minority
citizens ([based on most recent U.S. Census figures
for the service area] hy-%). (1- 4 points)
[Minority % X 4 = _]
C. Project improves opportunities for elderly
citizens (1 point for each related facility, typically
passive activities, except where facilities are
designed specifically for an elderly user group). (1-
4 points)
[# Appropriate elderly activities = _]
D. Project [improves] pro'Adcs opportunities for
youth-at-risk citizens where such action is nceded.
(1 point is offcrcd for each [documented] program
designed for youth-at-risk. Sponsor must
deScrIbe! define youth-at-risk population, programs,
and sponsors). (1 - 4 points)
[# Youth-at-risk activities = _]
[SPECIAL] POPULATION IS] TOTAL RANGE:
1 - 16 [points] p1S.
8. The eX:tent t8 which the Project involves
[matching funds from sources other than the
sponsor and/or additional outside cooperation not
involving match.] eeopeMtf8n between the sp8nsor
and Bther governmental or e6ucflti8Htd institutioHs
to pr-fJvide parI, and reereation opportunities fit the
prfJject site(s).
A. Project involves the contribution of resources
from other [public or private entities, including
publicly-owned non-parkland,] go',,'Cf'nmcntal or
cdurotional institutiellS which serves as all or part
of the sponsor's matching share of funds. Points are
awarded on a percentage basis, dependent on the
amount of matching funds provided by outside
sources. (1 - 15 points)
[Matchingfunds provided bv others X 15 =
Total matchingfunds
andlor,]
NOTE: Priority points arc awarTicd on a
percentage (%) basis, dependent Oil the a11ieunt of
matching funds jJf'evidcd by the other
gOl'Cf'nmelual/cducatienal institution:
cfHftributioH wtlue x 15
t8tRl mfltch
B. Project area is owned by anothcr go',,'Cmmcnfal
or educational institution and Ilill be pcrmanentl',)
dedicated for public park and recreational use
through a l-and donation or permanent park and
rccrcaticm casement. (5 points)
[B.]G Project involves cooperation between the
project sponsor and other rpublic or private entities)
gO}'CrJlJ1lcntal or educational institutions where
resources are contnbuted to the overall project for
non-grant assisted facilities (Example: The county
constructs roads/parking facilities for the city, but no
grant funds are requested for roads/parking; I point
per [documented] activity). (1-5 points)
[# Documented activities: _]
[OUTSIDE CONTRIBUTION] COOPERATION
TOTAL RANGE: 1 - [20] U points
9. The extent to which the project iw.'olWJ8
OOlla#ellS ef land, cash, lahor, equipmcnt and/or
maicrials friJHt the pri'.'ate secter as part of er all of
the spenser's matching share efthe project.
NOTE: Prierity points a1'(1 aiwilmed en a
pcr-centage (%) has is, dependent on thc aHU:Jfmt of
matching shar-c funds te he recehwi thriJugh
donations.
A. Pr<:Jjeet p1'8vides land and/or cash donations
from the prh'fJie secter as all or part of the
spenser's I1wtching (1 15 p$ints)
contributi8H wdue x 15
t8ttd msJch
B. Projeet priJ,..ides donated laber, equipment,
and/or materials fr$m the pri'.'atc seeror as al! or
part ef the sponser's matching sharf} (1 1 () p$ints)
centributi8n value x 10
t8ttd miltch
COST SHARE TOTAL RA}VGE: 1 15 p8ints
[9.) .J.(J. Project provides for the ACQUISITION
AND PRESERV ATION/CONSERV ATION of
park and recreation lands, [including publicly
owned non-parkland,] which consist of unique or
significant natural resources or provide desirable
wetlands, 61' open space, [water access), or p1'6v'itle
needed parkland f{Jr futul'e tle:t>-el8pment. [Only
the highest rank-order category below for which
the criteria are met for the project will be allowed
for scoring credit J
A Project provides for the acquisition and
preservation/conservation of a federal, state, or local
government identified area which is recognized in an
acceptable, published planning document for having
valuable or vulnerable natural resources, ecological
processes, or rare, threatened, or endangered species
of vegetation or wildlife ([25-30] 40 points); or
B. Project provides for the acquisition and
preservation/conservation of a significant wetland
area, recognized by the Texas Parks & Wildlife
Department, which is usable f-er 1'(1c1'Catien, and
meets at least ene (1) "thrf}sheld criteria" as
defmed in the U.S. Fish & Wil:dlifc Sc.",'ice }<[atientll
Wcttands Priority CmlScrl'a#en Plan ([20 - 25] Jf)-
~ points, based on quality and significance of
acreage); or
C. Project provides for the acquisition and
preservation/conservation of natural open space land
or water for human use and enjoyment that is
relatively free of man-made structures (including
creek corridors, floodways, natural drainage basins,
and areas which may be enhanced for native
habitat), wh$sO physical charactcristics ~~ill support
only minimal de'.dopmont, elle (1) [two (2)] acres or
larger in size, which is identified in an acceptable,
published and adopted local jurisdiction-wide open
space plan ([ J 5 - 20] 20 25 points, based on
acreage and quality); or
[D. Pr~jeet proposes the acouisition of land which
would provide needed public access to park and
recreational waters, according to the following
ranking (only the highest ranking water body will
receive points). (See definitions under criteria 4.)J
hoject pr$vides for dw acquisitien ef nceded
recreational land priJposcd for future de',Jo18pment,
or land which is lecated in tl densely dC'.deped a1'Ctl
within the spenser's jurisdiotien. (10 peints)
NOTE: This critcrien is n$t fffJplicahlc if
dc',:elapment is pr~osed. [(1 - 5 points)}
{Gulf Coast or Lake (5 points)
Bay or Estuary (4 points)
River (3 points)
Stream - continuous flow (2 points)
Pond (1 point)
or,]
[E. Project provides for the acquisition of needed
recreational land proposed for future development.
(J - J 0 points)]
[ACQUISITION) PRESER VATlON
RANGE: 1 - [30] 4f) points
TOTAL
[10.) .J..b- Project provides for the renovation [or
adaptive reuse) of an existing obsolete park and
recreation area or facilities. (1 -[20) .s points)
Renovation cost X [20).s =
Total construction cost
RENOVATION TOTAL RANGE: 1 - [20] ~
points
[11.] .J2. Project promotes environmentally
responsible activities and development. (-l--5
points)
[One point is awarded (up to a maximum of 5
points) for each budgeted conservation element,
such as] Projects proposing the use of
xeriscapelnative plant materials for landscaping, drip
or treated effluent irrigation systems, [energy
efficient lighting systems,) FCno';atitm ef obsektc
lighting systems ,~ith ffle1'C energy efftcient systems,
recycled materials for facility construction,
environmental education and interpretation,
significant tree plantings where no trees exist,
[alternative energy sources, water catchment
systems,) etc. (1 - 5 points)
[# Conservation elements:_)
NOTE: 1 peint is aWflfflcd fer eflC,~ censen'fltion
clement proposed in the gFflnt budget.
CONSERVATION TOTAL RANGE: 1 - 5
points
[12.] .J.k Project provides a [significant] greenbelt
linkage to other parks and recreation areas,
neighborhoods, or public facilities (through
means other than streets and sidewalks), based on
the number and significance of the linkage(s). f1-
5 points)
[# Significant linkages: )
Pflrk ta Pi1rk Lin,1c
Pflrk to Scheol Link
Park w }'lcighborheed Link
Park w Public Facility Link
LINKAGE TOTAL RANGE: 1- [3] ~ points
[13.] .J-4. Project provides park and recreation
opportunities which enhance and encoura~e an
appreciation and preservation of [site-based]
cultural (historical and archaeological) resources
through interpretation facilities or preservation
strategies. (1 5 points)
.VOTE.' Points are awarded based on the [number
and) significance of the [site-based] resource(s).
[# Site-based resources = _]
CULTURAL TOTAL RANGE: 1 - 5 points
PROJECT PRIORITY SCORING SYSTEM
TEXAS RECREATION & PARKS ACCOUNT
REGIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM
(Effective for the January 31, 2006 Application Deadline)
All [TRP A Regional Grant Program} gt'ttnt
applications submitted to [TPWD} the dcpartmcnt
.fer the r-cgienal park progr-aHt are evaluated for
program eligtbility and prioritized [with the criteria,
ratingfactors, and points shown in the following}
accer.fflng te thc "Project Priority Scoring System"
set f<:Jrth in this sectien. SceFCd appUeatiens arc
proscntcd te the TexTls Parks and Wildlife
Cemmissien fer appr<:JWlI.
[A project's} !Fhepriority ranking &f a pr<:Jjeet will
depend on its score in relation to the scores of other
projects under consideration. [Scored applications
are presented to the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Commission for approval.) Funding of projects will
depend on the availability of TRP A funds.
Projects which have net been [considered twice by
the Parks & Wildlife Commission} appro...'Cd after
twe censider-atiens by t,le c8Hlmission, without
[significant} alterations to signij'fCantly raise the
project score shall be [withdrawn from further
consideration} returned t<:J the sponsor and not
accepted for FCsuhmission.
1. +he-Sponsor is in full compliance at
previously assisted grant project sites and is
progressing on schedule with all active grant
projects in accordance with the "Summary of
Guidelines for Administration of TRP A
Acquisition and Development Projects".
YES. If yes, the application will be scored and
presented for award consideration.
NO. Ifno, the application will not be scored or
considered further.
[N/ A. No previous grant funding received.)
2. The extent to which the Project provides for
the acquisition of land for the purposes of:
A. Intensive use recreation ([ l-) 5 points);
[Acreage & facilities:
and! or
}
B. Significant linear greenways ([1-}S points);
[Length & significance:
}
and! or
C. Conservation areas (mostly passive use;
dedication required) ([ 1-) 5 points),
[Acreage & significance: }
and/or
D. Water access (natural water bodies) (1-5
points),
#, type and significance of water body(ies):
and/or
E. Natural resource access (such as mature forests,
prairies, fault zones, listed species habitat, etc.,
other than water), (1-5 points)
Type & significance of natural resource access:
.)
A maximum of 25 points will be awarded, with [1-
}S points awarded for each type of acquisition[,
based on acreage and significance}.
ACQUISITION TOTAL RANGE: [1-) S - 2S
points
[3. Project proposes development of significant
natural resource-based recreation.
A maximum of 15 points will be awarded as
allocated below:
A. The project proposes development of natural
water-based recreation (1 point per recreational
opportunity, up to a maximum of5 points);
# Water opportunities: _
and/or
B. The project proposes the development of natural
resource-based recreation (1 point per recreational
opportunity, up to a maximum of 5 points);
# Natural resource opportunities (other than water):
and/or
C. The project proposes the conservation of aquatic
habitat (1 point per conservation element, up to a
maximum of 5 points).
# Aquatic conservation elements: _
NATURAL RESOURCES TOTAL RANGE: l-
15 points)
(4.) 3. The extent to which the Project
demonstrates matching fund contributions (land,
(dedication of publicly owned non-parkland,)
money, in-kind)!, and/or additional outside
cooperation not involving match) from (sources
other than the sponsor,) multiple p6litical
jurisdictians.
A. A maximmn of {15) J. points may be awarded on
a percentage basis, depending on the amount of
matching funds provided by (outside sources) fJfheF
political jurisdic#ens as determined by dividing the
total contnbution value by the total match and
multiplying by (15) J..
Total Contnbutions = _ X (15) J. = _
Total Matching Funds
[B. Project involves cooperation between the project
sponsor and other public or private entities where
resources are contributed to the overall project for
non-grant assistedfacilities (Example: The county
constructs roads/parkingfacilities for the sponsor,
but no grant funds are requested for roads/parking;
1 point per documented activity, up to a maximum of
5 points.
# Documented activities: _)
OUTSIDE MATCH COOPERATION TOTAL
RANGE: 1 - (20) J. points
(5.) 4. The extent to which the project ffulfllls) is
a component of a (documented) comprehensive,
[conservation,) or park and recreation master
plan for 1 or more political jurisdictions [or
public service organizations).
A maximmn of 5 points will be awarded, with 1
point awarded per [documented) plan [(copy
relevant section/map, etc. and discuss relationship
between plan and project).)
[# Master plans: _)
MASTER PLAN TOTAL RANGE: 1 - 5 points
5. The ~t t8 which the p1'fJject JH'fJposes facility
development which will be used 0,. pl'6gHlmmed by
multiple pelitielll jul'isdictions.
A maximum ef 5 points .~ill be awalYled, with 1 point
a',vtl7-dcd pcr centributing entity.
Pr-egFtlmming Tetal Range: 1 5 peints
6. The extent t8 which the project demonstrates
commitments for funds, reseU1'ees, or
pl'UgHlmming JWHn the priWl1e sector or non pl'6jit
grfJups.
A maximum ef 5 peints lWU be awaffl-cd, .dth 1 point
awarded per tct-tcr ef commitment.
PrhNlt-c Sector Tetal Range: 1 5 peints
7. The ~ent t8 which the pl'Ojeet RelHenstrates the
dedication e/ publicly ewned nen parkland }rom a
S8ur-ee ether than the applicant.
A maximum el5 points l~ill be awarded based en the
aacage and signifu:ance of the pr()jJerty -,~ithin the
entire projcct.
Dedicatien Total Range: 1 5 points
8. The extent t8 which the pl'Oject pl'6fJoses
acquisititJn and/BY tlewlopment 8f signigicant
wRter based YeS8U1'ees.
A maxinulm of 1 5 points will be a-,Vtlr-dcd as
allocat-cd below:
A. The project prepescs the acquisit-ien of water
access (5 peints); and/or
B. The project prepescs t,k dndepmcnt of
lVtltcr based recreat-ien (1 point per 1'Ccreatiellal
opportunit)~ up to a maximum 015 peints); and/or
C. The project propeses the COllSCPlation of
aquat:ic habitat (1 paint per callser.'tltion ekment,
up t-8 a maximum of 5 points).
Water Resource Tatal Range: 1 15 points
9. The extent to whidt the IJHJieet 1H'-6IJ8SeS
Retluisitisn Rnil/Br d~'elBlJlHent sf R siJ!1lifieRnt
nRtuMl Fessur-ee sther thlHl WRter.
A maximum of 10 paints Hill be tlll'tlr-ded as
allocated bdow:
A The project proposes the acquisition of
natur-al 1'-csourcc acecss (5 points); {ma/or
B. The p1'-aject proposes the development of
natur-al r-csource based rccr-cat-ion oppe1'tunifics. (1
point will be awar-ded per 1'ecrootion epportunity
p1'(nided, up to a maximum of 5 peints.J
.Vatur-al Resour-ce Tatal Range: 1 10 peints
[6.) #k The extent to which the Project proposes
to link [significant public assets or destinations}
multiple p61itical jurisdic#sHs with trails and/or
greenbelts [other than streets and sidewalks}.
A maximum of [1 OJ # points will be awarded, with
[2J j points per linkage[, based on number and
significance of linkages). Fer eXTlmpk: 2 entities
linlccd - 5 points; 3 entities linked - 1 () points; 4
entities linked - 15 peints.
[# linkages = _ X 2 = _J
GREENBELT LINKAGE TOTAL RANGE: [2-
10 points} 5 15 ]J8ints
[7.}.J-1... The exfeitt to which the Project promotes
conservation of natural resources [and
sustainable developmentJ through the use of
activities or techniques such as xeriscape or
native plant materials, drip or treated effluent
irrigation systems, energy efficient lighting
systems, recycled materials for facility
construction, environmental education or
interpretation, significant tree plantings where no
trees exist, alternative energy sources, water
catchment systems, or other green building or
resource conservation measures.
A maximum of 5 points will be awarded, with 1
point for each conservation element.
[# Conservation elements: _J
CONSERVATION TOTAL RANGE: 1 - 5
points
~f3g~ti?
.....O/,()"tco
Oco' Iri oi ...... a;i
(06<)(\/6<)(0
6<) ~ 6<)
/e(V)OCOo
~~~~:g
'" ..... 0) 6<) ",-
/,()6<)/,() .....
;;; 6<) 6<)
~~~2g
ti? ~ :e ;;;-zo"
~ ;;; 6<)
~gg~g
S> /,()- 0" (V)- 0-
., ..... r-... 6<) r-...
.....6<)..... .....
6<) 6<) 6<)
(V) (V)
00
.....
Q)
OJ
en
Q
"?
(V)
, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I"- 0 0 0 LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
....- ~ q 0 q 1"-- 0_ 0_ C"). N_ ....- 0_ ....- I"- O. C") N ....- ....- 0_ 0 ..
- M ....- C") M 0 CO 0 0 0 CO cD 0 N r-.: ....- ~ cD u-) co 0 0 .
0 ....- C") fh fh 0> 0> I"- ....- C") ....- co 0> ....- co LO N ....- C") fh ....- ....- .
I- "<t co fh LO ....- fh fh fh C") fh fh fh C") fh fh fh fh fh .
"C fh fh fh fh fh fh
-
C
e
C)
. 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 I"- 0 0 LO LO 0 0 0 0 0
- ....- CO. 1"-. CO. N ....- ....- I"- 0_ C") N_ ....- ....-
r-.: C") "<t I"- ~ 0 C") N ....- cD "<t 0> N
0 CO LO fh fh 0 fh N 0> fh fh fh fh
. ....- ....- ....- ....- fh fh
. . fh fh fh fh
. .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- q 0_ 0_ 0 O. O. 0 0_ LO 0_ O. O. O. q O. 0 q 0 q 0_ 0
"i c CO CO C") M 0 N 0 0 N N CO 0 0> LO 0 r:t5 N cD co 0 0
::s 0 CO fh fh 0> "<t I"- ....- N ....- CO 0> fh CO CO ....- ....- N fh ....- ....-
- 0 C") "<t fh "<t ....- fh fh fh N fh fh N fh fh fh fh fh
0 E fh fh fh fh fh fh
l- e(
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. 0_ 0 0 q 0 0_ 0_ 0_ 0 q 0 0 0_
. . 0 0 0 LO u-) 0 LO 0 0 LO u-) 0 LO
I"- CO I"- ....- ....- CO ....- CO CO ....- ....- CO ....-
. - ....- N ....- fh fh N fh N N fh fh N fh
- fh fh fh fh fh fh fh
. .
.
f/) LO
G) . ~ ~ '''! It:! ~ """: "! C'! C'! ~ ....- "<l:
....- 0
:::iE ....- ..- N ....- 0 ....- 0 0 ....- 0 0
. '0> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. g-
. ctl ctl ctl ctl ctl
e e e e e e
. . ,9 ,9 ,9 ,Ql ,9 ,9
. . lIJ lIJ lIJ lIJ lIJ lIJ
0> en g Q) OJ 0> 0> OJ QJ 0> QJ
. Q) - - - -
..c ..c Q) 0> 0> 0>
L.. e e L.. e L.. L.. e e L.. e
u u ~ :Q. :9- u '0.. u u '0.. :Q. u :Q.
"5 e :J e e e e
a L.. L.. a E a a "i:: 'i:: a 'i::
. E E - - - en -
u lIJ lIJ U lIJ U U lIJ U lIJ
0> -
. "0
- 0>
ctl
E "0
.c '(i.j
"i - :;:J I
C) lIJ a
- . 0> ~
0 C . ,!Q
I- G) ..c ~
..J - co
,~ :e
- ctl
a a.
e - '-" - -
"<t
~
. 0> .
"0
ctl .
. g
:J
0> .
. 0> III III :0 III III
'(i.j .
..::.: e e e e
. CD 0 0 lIJ 0
e S 0
. ctl "0 .. .. .. ..
'i:: U Co) Co) Co) .
- e CD ..- C") CD "<t N CD CD
lIJ ctl ....- C") NN
III ~ III III
0> 0> L- ,g .g ,g ,g ,g L- ,~ L- ,g 0>
,~ ..::.: CD CD CD CD ,~
I ..... ..... ..... ..... .
l.U .5 l- I- l- e l- I- e I- .5 l- I-
~ <( lJ) () <( lJ) ....- C'! C") <( ....- C'! C") "<l: <( lJ)
~ 0 "<t "<t "<t co co a> 0> a> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ....- ....- ....- ....- ..- ..-
~ Z
N
0>
0>
ctl
a..
0 0 0 0 C<) I!') I!') 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0' 0 I!') 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ..
'is 0 0 0 0 CO I' C<) 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 ..q- 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .
I!'). I!'). I!') I!') C<). ~ CO O. O. O. C'\!. q qq ~ C\!. C<) Cl) ~ 0 0 0 0 .
.... CO CO ..0 CO N .,f N 0 0 0 N 0 00 0 CO cD (h co 0 0 0 0 .
0 N ..q- I' N (h ~ (h Cl) ~ ~ I' Cl) Cl)Cl) co ~ jl!') co Cl)~ ~I' . .
l- I!') ~ ..- I!') (h (h (h (h I' (h (h (h N (h ..q- C<) (h (h (h ~ .
"C (h (h (h (h , (h (h (h (h (h -
C - -
l!
C)
. 0 0 0 0 C<) I!') I!') 0 0 0' 0 I!') 0
0 0 0 0 ~ I' C<) 0 0 0 0 ..q- 0
- I!') I!') I!') I!') CO CO I' N. CO. N C<) N ..-
- as cD (h ri (h .,f as (h
co I!') 0 N 0
C<) C<) ..q- C<) (h 0 I"- (h ~ 0
..- (h (h ..- N (h ..- ..-
(h (h (h (h (h
.
. .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 I!') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.... q O. 0 0 1"-. I!') ~ O. 0 O. O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 0 I' 0 0 0 0 0
'is c 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 N- o 0 0 N 0 0 0 co N as (h co 0 0 O' 0
j Cl) ~ C<) Cl) (h ~ (h Cl) ..- ..- I' Cl) Cl) Cl) 0 ..- C<) co Cl) ~ ~ I"-
.... 0 C<) ..- ..- C<) (h (h (h (h I!') (h (h (h N (h C<) N (h (h (h ..-
0 E (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h
l- e:(
-
0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. o. 0 0 0 I!') 0 I!') o. 0 0 o. I!') o.
. . 0 0 0 0 ri ..0 C<)- 0 0 ..0 0 ri 0
- co N co co (h ~ (h co co ~ co (h co
. N N N N (h N N (h N N
(h (h (h (h (h (h (h (h
.
.
.
~
en .
~ ~ ~ I!') ~ ~ l"- t'! "! ~ ~ ~ "! "'-:
.- ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 N 0 0 ~ 0 ~
:E
. -
. ~ ~
. ..... co co
. ro c c
. ~ .2: .Ql
. . II) II)
Q) II) Q) Q) Q: Q) Q) Q) Q)
. ..... co ..... ~ g g Q5 - '2 - g ~
Q) ~ Q) Q)
.... C C .... .... C ....
. (.) Q) (.) (.) :Q. :Q. :Q. (.) (.) :9 (.) :9 (.)
c "'0 C C .;:: ';:: ';:: c c .;:: c .;:: c
0 .~ 0 0 Iii Iii - 0 0 ~ 0 ..... 0
. (.) (.) (.) II) (.) (.) (.) II) (.)
"'0 Qi
Q) 10
.c . 32 E
II)
- .... I :;::;
ca 0) 0 II)
.... ! ~ Q)
0 c .
I- G) .!!1
..J . f;
.!:
.....
0
- c .
C<)
I~ .
.
.
. Q) .
"'0
co
. ~ .
:J .
III Q) .
. II) II) ::c . .
c c "m, II) '00
. c
0 0 0 II)
. ~ ~ ~ g
CJ CJ CJ .;;;;; .
Gl C<) N N Gl C<) C<) C<) Gl C<) N N ..q- .
l!! II) l!!
,g ,g ,g .... ,~ .~ ,g ,~ ,g ,g Q) .
Gl Gl Gl
- - - .
.E l- I- I- .E l- I- I- .E l- I- l- I- .
~ ~ "! C<) ~ <! coo <! co 0 - "! <! co
N "'-: 0 0
'- 0 N N N N NN I!') I!') I!') ~ ..-- ..-- ..-- ~ ..--
0 Z ~ ..-- ..-- ~ ~ ..--
~
-
C<)
Q)
C>
co
a..
B
--~--~..
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 10. 2005 ",
Bude:et
Requested By: Wayne Saho
Source of Funds:
N/A
Department:
Phlllllillg
Account Number:
N/A
Report: X Resolution:
Ordinance:
Amount Budgeted:
N/A
Exhibit 1:
Map adoption process
Amount Requested: N/A
Exhibit 2:
Old/New FIRM example
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibit 3:
Old/New FIRM example
Exhibit 4:
Old/New FIRM example
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The county wide devastation caused by Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 sparked a remapping of Harris County in an
effort to arrive at the most up to date floodplain maps possible. The new preliminary floodplain maps have been
released by FEMA and the multi-step process leading to their adoption as outlined in Exhibit I has begun. Little
unexpected change occurred in La Porte. In some areas the floodplain actually grew smaller and in other areas land
that was not in the previously mapped floodplain now is now listed as such. There were, as well, new, large areas of
substantial change. It will be City Council's decision to adopt for use the preliminary maps as the best available
data and regulatory maps before the effective date set by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should
Council so choose. To date only the City of Houston and Harris County have adopted the preliminary maps as the
regulatory maps. Staff will notify potential development to use the more restrictive of the old and new maps for new
projects in La Porte. The floodplain maps that La Porte has received represent a snapshot in time of the lay of the
land as it existed in October 2001. Future drainage construction projects such as the future regional detention ponds
in the Willow Springs and Little Cedar Bayou watersheds and any effect they may have on the base flood elevations
were not incorporated into the new floodplain maps. Upon their completion, the agency responsible for their
construction will seek a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) through the FEMA if the capital improvement project has
an affect on the base flood elevation for the watershed in which the project is being constructed. An overlay of the
current effective maps versus the proposed maps can be viewed at www.tsarp.org/viewer.htm. A public hearing is
not required. This item was tabled at the December 13, 2004 City Council meeting.
Action Required bv Council:
Receive report on new preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Approved for City Council Ae:enda .
iiliJit<-'
Debra Brooks F
j,-V-{)5
Date
EXHIBIT 1
Process to adopt new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs):
1. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) meets with local municipality
to officially present new FIRMs and explain the adoption process. This occurred
on October 25,2004. La Porte was the first community in Harris County FEMA
met with.
2. Once FEMA has met with all of the communities in Harris County as well as
Harris County itself, FEMA will publish in the local newspaper - the Bayshore
Sun for us - two consecutive weekly notifications to the public that the new
preliminary FIRMS have been released to the local administrating agencies.
3. Upon the day of the second publication, a 90 appeals period begins in which the
public may challenge the maps. All appeals must be submitted within this 90 day
window.
4. FEMA has 180 days to review and rule on all submitted appeals. The maps will
be changed thereafter according to the appeals if the appeals are ruled to be
warranted, sound, and administratively complete.
5. Once the maps are in final form, FEMA will set an effective date of the maps.
6. The local municipalities then have 180 days to adopt the new maps. FEMA
encourages the adoption of the new maps within 150 days.
EXHIBIT 2
A/I,'1
~
.....
w .....
tll W
;;s W
cr:
~ ..... x
w en
NOSNISOl:i W
..... Z
w
w 0
cr:
..... N
lJ)
-'
no
~
~
e::::
o
~
<~
...:l~
V)
~~
o
><
~
-
U
:c
.....
cr:
o
z
x
lOOH::lS
X\>'V'l0l
ON'1IdnOJ
.....
w
w
a:
.....
en
:I:
N
:c
.....
a:
o
Z
9NINMOl:l8
w
Z
o
N
!30108
M31^
)I\:lV'l Moa\f3~
0 .....
w
cr: w
~ 0 iii cr:
~ ...l a: .....
<( iii t:l Z en
:c z 0 z z iii
<( ~ en w a: 5 UJ ~ 0 :x:
UJ w ::l a: a: ~ ::l cr:
::a 0 ~ cr: ~ <( -' ::a :c
Vi :c C\.. u a:l ::l .....
:.t ..... V> cr:
z 0 0 :c 0
w
w 0 0 X z
cr: cr: a:
t:l III III W
Moa\f3~ Z al:lla"Nl)lJO~
0
N AV'lV'l'tJ
'tV'lOl ::101
>-
o
::l
u..~
OV>
.....0
~~
...l<(
.....
W
o
IoU
Z
o
N
l:I3^Ol::l
H.L'td
3S01:lV'lIl:ld
IoU
Z
o
N
o
~
~
13NN083ma
'\. II
~J/
j'
\
\,
h ~
CI: \
'U2 ~
h9;
CI:<l;
O-J
Q..ct
:SU
~
:.:>
~
io
::1.-"
cC
-C
CI:ld
'1;c
l::tl,
.!:lc
~.....
~
110
~
>-
>- ..... ~ ::t :i; uJ
~ en )- -'
w $: w 0 ;i
a: ~ ...J 0
:c ~ ..... ...J <( >
u V> <( Z
a: cr: w UJ UJ ~
<( <( ...J cr: > ::a
c.. t:l U ~
MOO't3V'lN31!:l
Vl
'-'
Z
c:
0-
Vl
~33H::l
\fv'IH8
::I
o
S S
Cl:)tQC'
r--",c
...; ~~
j>"\"t C
- '" I
I:l r~CN
~ -'" ~
w
Z
o
N
I
X
z8
o
N
~
><
~;,.....;--: 7?,.. + G 0
)r8L~}1~t ~.n",...~ I~h
,~(;,;~"::J~b:~ 7. ":.l,.I ~.{'/"~i .~
~ -' ....i'.fi.:~ '. .' . .. ......'.,x.;o a:
c~,..;O! ~/~..i,,+WCO.~
'C', ',,<, '"" ..... Xi<"Y, ..... }~...g. .... :.'
· 11,,'i"" i-f ~j :?"':9! 1
..../,...:;...'0;";- N ~. I
LO "",',,'.'.' '..' .....
~ ,. ~.:t: '>'0" ',x.. \1' OAla \ .LL3l:ll:lVEl
~ :t;j :::'i'" .w' ....~
oI'~ ".....71, 2! 1""-
(J ~ .;."h",:':C WV \ ...~: 3N\fl
~ -" --- ~ ~
w
2
....
x
w
2
o
N
3^Il:lQ ^^lV
J:
tuc
al ~
~a:
:J
w
Jl:l NOSNlaOl:l
~
~
I
~
r;;
...
~
c
<
o
a:
z
~
:3
T~
10 100708
O)W
~<I:
Ow
N2
00
N
I ::]>
I
~
-:-
x
w
2
o
N
1""-
O~
---'
3NVl
IS3ijdA:) 5 Z
~~
-iia~
3:>"1d M1VII'J
DNINMOl:la
<
'.-:1
, : . ;.~;~
~"~
x
w
z
.-J 2 .... ;.,;c,'.'
'130100 . 'i'::',..
~lm f I~~~,
~V ~ .~.
~~ r ~ ~ "S'
N r J j0:Ei)~\;
/ ~ 1f l':';~!N~ -:
/ ~ ~UL~..7 ~
o 0 ~
o 0
a: a:
al al
,'.\,::
~
1:10 )I1:l\fd MOOV3L'IJ
x
w
Z
o
N
J:
~
o
Z
~-"
^
i<
N
x
w
2
o
N
~
::l
........
OCll
l::C
'2~
:J;;C
~, ....
C "C'l
.'".
!
<I:
w
2
o
N
I
z
0
a:
~ ~
~
~"!~
<ae
~~
~ae
O~
~
~ ~
~
U
a:
o
~
a:
~
I ~ ~
l:l0 ON\fldn( 0 M __ _ I Z C)
C:"A ...;.I'i 0
) [.,.,".;X .....,. N
~: "c;(i~f€jJ,&'~1-",,!'lI/;,:~-a
> ~ t\ + t :,!:;;.).:..t"::~~f;i'~~l~'~ ":
',;"'0'j} I.,\, ... .'d!!f)',f
i).i""';; ;:r,-,:~
~t",'".......: .............i\,f,i ')N)
~"~~'. '- N1:~ I i ~
~~
~~
~l
~.s2
....,::
~ll.Q
ii5
'-
tu
\IJ
a:
~
(II
+
-'
J:
6:
o
z
X\fL'IJ01
HO ON\f1dnaO 3
""i
~
J:
CIl
::l
a:
J:
~
....
w
w
a:
....
III
Z
w
a:
==
~
UJ
a:
"""
CIl
~
a:
~
Ul
....
\IJ
W
a:
....
(II
i:
c:c
o
a:
tu
\IJ
a:
....
rJl
~
Z
C
a:
c(
(J
w
z
:5
o
a:
as
w
:3
c:c
C
a:
Cii
Cl
Z
~
'2
::l
:t:
3NV1 Ol:llaElNDIOOW
>(
3N\fl ^~W\f::l
3N\7'l ltWOl 001
"W' -..I
~ w'J~
c ~<l1a::
~ -'9"""
ij3^OlO
1~
H.l\fd
3fOI:lWIl:ld
'U I Ibll.IJna :2n,Q ..,.
OLD
.....
~~
~~~
1::i ,.......
-' !::!::o.. ~
-' ,.... ~
~ ~~~
~~~
_. ~~~~~v;j)l i~g
~ ~U U ~'"l~--
W ~;t...
ct::Q;Q:
~~~ ~
<~ ~~~ t:~
~-
:"~':~i:
;:)
>.
/ ~UJ a:
J:~ a: a:
ult 0 C C
a:C ~ ~ ~
c( (II
\IJ ~
a: 5:
(.)
3~l:la ~ z
J.S31:10N31D a: ~ UJ
~ a:
Cl (J
r-
-
a:
It 0
C \IJ
~ (J
:> ~ X
1::i ~ ~
;:j 00
~ ;~c;
~.....,
~~~~
a:
· l!
~:>
"O~
;ow
:~,5.
,~':}
}:
.."
,~
1:10 SMOO]i'f31f11
"",.(; II
~~
~\IJ ~
(.)>"."1
wa:...."
ClC
o
.!.-
31D
'''-:::C:.
x
"W.
','2
"0
"'N,
;...~
~
l,i:
-,.,:.;
';'-':."',';,.
'.: '",-,"',
">',\ 11111=' ,BROOK OR'.,.. ..'
.... -- ~ ....
~..,. ..:.... ,,"',_ '." or ':~'. '~.... :\~:~, '~,~~~N
,~. ~<<:
ill
..'S'~ '~.'~
~:~~o 'fl ~ '~~ ~~5
~ c~~~\\.\. ~ .
.soo ~"'~~'?-
iI(,.$; 0 Co~0 '" DRIVE
f.so ~~~
~ c;
~~ "1,<< -j.?''3'd':J
~ 0 .... 'd'l/I'dB
~ '''0
~rJ~~~~ ~
9
-'
~
.... .....:... i"
....
.,w.....
".> JJ.'.
',.a: :ii.. ......."... ':'W
'0:5 .., ....t.-
.....~ 2(1;;;;........' ~ ~
'(J o~
". N
~ ""'- v 0 O'J
~ "-
(II
~
ttl a: w
13 U1 c-'
Ii: 1:) ~
== c( w>-
~ '213~
~ I....- L--
DE?\IIIOOO \
UN _ _
-
:t:
~
CII
Z
:;j;
~
ROAD
31l:!Od \fl :f0 A.L1:l
-
)Il:!\fd l:!330 :10 AlI:l
l-
V.
..
S
(0......
~~,e,
I ~~
~ /
o..~
~.~
~~
'-
Cl
C>J
'"
w
X <
w w
2 Z
~'),~ ~
10
f'l
~!
Ni
:4E"~ .,..,,0:
c.,'..":~
"""l ~-"'6
!
--
l~
W
2..
EXHIBIT 3
31\0:>
W03:>
>-
~
""
cr:
~
.L33!:/.
C/) - -------=::::::: _
I"-
~
-./
Old/O'r;c
...
:a:
o
~
cr:
ft
-
tJ..J
i-
<r
cr.
IE
o
u
I
0"18
\1:
----..--------.-----------
~
I.U
Z
o
N
UJ
i- >-
o/i-
n. 2
<r/6
-./u
/fk
~~'--
: ~::g ~ ' :. ,'>':, :::'1,J'. , <~"
?~ :.:.J,. ';;,..:
'": "-,,~,..,.~
-r: , .,' . ..... .'\'
~. - .!..:..'. "':3 ':"'I:::("'fjif' 'H~':"'::"'2:' ,",:;;':;
""- . . . .,,,,\, '.~ ~
., 5.", ~""~ ~ ';"'!'~'.,,~
r:;-. . ' ,. b..,';,' ,\ ..' Fl;)~' , !
s-'t, . ~ '." ".\.. :::.i', _ ,.
.0~ . ~\ ,,_
E2 ,,-, ,'.' , .' "'" .".
-' .: r'. ~'. r. ~
I- 6: "" ',,' .. "". '>'\..
CIl ,....
..:.., ~". ..:CIl ~ ..' ,'"
;V ....~ "tBi~:r "" ,
:',_ c. '-..~.
--1. ..'.... ....
...:' -:"7.
-~.
~".I "I.
',":''''
~ .',c
~.
..:.
-
':,..,J$'g;
:'4:;.S. ..~.
.,,"2,,,,'(.)'1::
",.'
,"
.;;;,
.!
;:,:(;~: <:'.' .
':">.: .... '.
.' -::,'-:.:.. "''',-:
C.:,:,.... ..,~ ....
)""'"."'\':.';'
,',
~_..:.,: "':".:."
';:., .....':,...'
, ....... :. ~'>,"',;:
\.;~
t.. --'--':::'..:...::::.
0\1'01:/
:'.';--" '...,.
"=!,
:.:>:
.','
,. .,,;~ r!~'f'15J1
r:;'J.," ,'.: c." ,:, r.l Q
:. ",' I,., .," 'I
} X';".'': .... ,.n
12.Ff.'::.:iB:' ': is f. ".
~>( I
~
~
tl
~
e:
CIl
lI.l
I-
Co')
.L33l:/.LS:l: H.l.l.L
+
-...... 3.LI:JOcJ ~l ::/0 -Ul:J
~. ~ -
I \ .t\.1.NnO:J! SII:JI:J'v'H
r
i 0
0
~ (t)
~$?
-0
I :E
::i
I t:: >(
o:t'
cr: ~
0
Q.. 0
cr: N
j' 0
<J
g;
~
>( Ql:/Y1\31n08
Ul Y3l:/\f A\1S
~
~ I
) CIj
i
~'<
en
~I ~~
if .>- o~,....
I- o~oe
~ ~
-. CI\ ..
\-
~
..2'
- 'Hi,!;t
>(
~
e
.....
-
~
'\!
;~
'f
~
~i ki
~
EXHIBIT 4
,.......
~
~o
o
Z6
00
8\
oog
t;:::4C'\
~~
G
(1
~
""
~Cl
"'~
Zz
o
;:, 0.
<C.o
~\I.
;t.o
p~
0<.
s~
....Cl
W2
~...
"'~
:az
';;;0
4.
o
U
~
~
~
~
~
~
g
~
~
z
W
>-
,...
W....
Z....
O!:!.
N
~
z
U)ti
ZW
0....
-Q
tiC
~~
wO
Oll:
O~j::
go~
....Z:=
w:s...
i~~
..Izj3
~oc
",?:Ie;
ot~
uc_
W
>-
,...
W'"
Z..J
o!:!:!
N '\
w
<- W W
W~ >iii>;::
ZU: w.... w....
0- Zuj 2m
N 0- o-
N N
w
>-
UI
w....
Zm
o-
N
(J)
0:>-
Wf-
tDz
~::>
<to
J:U
'\
c
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Appropriation
Agenda Date Requested: Januarv 10. 2005
Requested By: Wayne J. Sabo ~
Source of Funds:
NA
Account Number: NA
Department:
Plannine:
Amount Budgeted: NA
Report: -X-Resolution: _Ordinance:
Exhibits:
P&Z Staff Report 11-18-04
SECTION 106-333 TABLE B
SECTION 106-443 TABLE B
SECTION 106-552 TABLE B
SUMMARY
City Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider proposed amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106), Section 106-333; Table B., Residential Area Requirements,
Section 106-443; Table 8., Commercial Area Requirements and Section 106-522; Table 8.,
Industrial Area Requirements to amend, change or modify the maximum allowable height for
structures within those zones.
As previously explained, the exact reason for establishing the maximum height for buildings
within the City at 45 feet is not known. Discussion of fire protection and the general blocking of
view were offered as possible reasons. The current discussion was precipitated by the
application of a proposed Hotel, constrained by narrowness of available land for development, to
build a fourth story and thereby exceeding the maximum allowable height of 45 feet by a total of
6 feet. Given the economic challenges to development posed by in-fill lots and the reduced
dimensions of available land, commercial developers are beginning to seek relief from the height
requirement to make their project more economically feasible. Adding additional stories to
buildings compensates for the reduction of footprints at the base of the building to allow room
for required parking, landscaping and maneuver isles. Viewing economic development as a
priority, City Council requested a review of the issue. As was briefed at previous meetings, the
LPFD has no issue with fighting fires in taller buildings. While current equipment can reach 100
feet, a good rule of thumb is 7 stories (70 feet) due to having to position the truck to fight the
fire. This limitation, however, does not prevent the building from additional stories in excess of
70 feet. LPFD has stated that subject to the structures being built to building and fire codes (e.g.
requiring a sprinkler system); they see no limiting factor to height of the building from their
perspective.
Fire and building codes set parameters for requiring sprinkler systems and family/residential
structures are habitually not sprinklered. Staff recommended residential use requirements as
currently presented in the Zoning Ordinance regarding maximum allowable heights remain intact
and Commercial/Industrial maximum height requirements be removed.
Upon conclusion of the workshop held October 21, 2004, the Commission reached a consensus
that the 45' maximum height rule remains intact. The stated reasons are as follows:
. There have not been many requests for variances or special exceptions to the rule and
P&Z felt the action to remove the rule was premature.
. Several members felt that the 45' rule remained a valuable tool to monitor growth and
development within the City and was in the best interests of the citizens to review
applications on a case-by-case basis regarding the maximum height of development.
At the November 18, 2004, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a unanimous
vote, forwarded their official position for action by City Council that the maximum height rule of
45' remains in Chapter 106 (Zoning).
This item was tabled from the December 13, 2004 agenda.
Action Required bv Council:
1. Direct Staff to develop a change to Chapter 106 (Zoning) to eliminate the 45'
maximum height requirement and set a date for a Public Hearing (per Section 106-171
(8), requires a vote of three-fourths of the City Council).
2. Direct Staff to allow the 45' maximum height requirement to remain in Chapter 106
(Zoning).
Approved for City Council Aeenda
l ~cf -()5
Date
Staff Report
November 18,2004
Maximum Height in Zoning Districts
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
City Council has directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106), Section 106-333; Table B.,
Residential Area Requirements, Section 106-443; Table B., Commercial Area
Requirements and Section 106-522; Table B., Industrial Area Requirements to amend,
change or modify the maximum allowable height for structures within those zones. Staff
analyzed the situation thoroughly and presents this item to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their discussion and eventual recommendations to City Council for the
following changes to the Code of Ordinances relating to maximum allowable heights for
structures.
Existin2 Requirements:
Zoning - Under the Sections listed above, the maximum allowable height
for structures are:
Residential
. Single Family detached---
. Single Family large Lot---
. Single Family Special Lot-
. Duplexes---------------------
. Single Family Converted--
. Townhomes/Quads---------
. Multifamily------------------
. Manufactured Housing----
CommerciallIndustrial
. General Commercial-------
. Business Industrial---------
. Light Industrial--------------
. Heavy Industrial---------n--
35 feet
45 feet
35 feet
45 feet
35 feet
45 feet
45 feet
25 feet
45 feet
45 feet
45 feet
45 feet
NOTE: Shipping Containers are governed by a separate ordinance
which establishes the maximum stacking to be four (4) containers
regardless of height.
Planning & Zoning Commb..>lon
November 18, 2004
Maximum Height
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Page 2 of 4
Backe:round
· As previously explained, the exact reason for establishing the maximum height
for buildings within the City at 45 feet is not known. Discussion of fire protection
and the general blocking of view were offered as possible reasons.
· The current discussion was precipitated by the application of a proposed Hotel,
constrained by narrowness of available land for development, to build a fourth
story and thereby exceeding the maximum allowable height of 45 feet by a total
of 6 feet.
· Given the economic challenges to development posed by in-fill lots and the
reduced dimensions of available land, commercial developers are beginning to
seek relief from the height requirement to make their project more economically
feasible. Adding additional stories to buildings compensates for the reduction of
footprints at the base of the building to allow room for required parking,
landscaping and maneuver isles. Viewing economic development as a priority,
City Council is requesting a review of the issue.
· As was briefed at previous Planning and Zoning Commission and Zoning Board
of Adjustment meetings, the LPFD has no issue with fighting fires in taller
buildings. While current equipment can reach 100 feet, a good rule of thumb is 7
stories (70 feet) due to having to position the truck to fight the fire. This
limitation, however, does not prevent the building from additional stories in
excess of 70 feet. LPFD has stated that subject to the structures being built to
building and fire codes (e.g. requiring a sprinkler system); they see no limiting
factor to height of the building from their perspective. The fire Code, with
amendments, states:
603.15.9
Additional Required Automatic Sprinkler Systems
In addition to any other fire and/or building code requirements the
following occupancies shall be totally equipped with a sprinkler
system.
1. ASSEMBL Y OCCUPANCIES
(A) All Class A assembly occupancies.
(B) When a Class B assembly occupancy is located in a building above
the level of exit discharge, the entire building shall be equipped with a
sprinkler system.
Planning & Zoning CommiS"lon
November 18,2004
Maximum Height
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Page 3 of4
(C) When a Class C assembly occupancy is located in a building two
(2) stories or more above the level of exit discharge, the entire building
shall be .equipped with a sprinkler system.
2. BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES
A business occupancy 3 stories or more in height shall be totally
equipped with a sprinkler system.
3. RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES
(A) Hotels, motels, dormitories or lodging or rooming houses 3 stories
or more in height, with exterior means of egress, the entire building
shall be totally equipped with a sprinkler system.
(B) Hotels, motels, dormitories or lodging or rooming houses 2 stories
or more in height, with interior means of egress, the entire building
shall be totally equipped with a sprinkler system.
(C) Apartment buildings, townhouses and condominiums 3 stories or
more in height, with interior means of egress, the entire building shall
be totally equipped with a sprinkler system.
(D)Apartment buildings, townhouses and condominiums 2 stories or
more in height, with interior means of egress, the entire building shall
be totally equipped with a sprinkler system.
(ORD. No. 98-2221, ~ 2-9-98)
· Similarly, Table 503 of the International Building Code (IBC) addresses height
requirements. Table 503 utilizes intended use & construction type of buildings to
determine allowable height and areas for a building.
· Later sections (Sec. 504) does allow for some increase in building stories/height
when automatic sprinkler system requirements are met; and Sec. 506 provides for
some area modifications based on certain setbacks & sprinkler systems.
· The building code is, in fact, more restrictive than the Fire Codes. Even with
sprinkler systems, most building height & area limitations are not unlimited and
are governed by the IBC.
· Future major developments would require flow testing on the water distribution
system in vicinity of the proposed project to determine fire suppression
capabilities in relation to the proposed height of the project.
Recommended ReQuirements:
Planning & Zoning CommissIOn
November 18, 2004
Maximum Height
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Page 4 of 4
. Since family/residential structures are habitually not sprinklered, Staff, at this
point, recommends residential use requirements as currently presented in the
Zoning Ordinance regarding maximum allowable heights remain intact.
. Commercial/Industrial maximum height requirements are removed.
Conclusions:
The footprint of remaining land in the commercial and industrial zones of the City, due to
shape and size, is becoming more restrictive to development. Economic development is
one of the highest Council priorities. The factors promoting economic development,
however, must be balanced with factors of 'safe' development.
Given that the LPFD has no issues with maximum heights of building (with building and
fire codes remaining current and updates approved); and since the Fire Code and the IBC
are both restrictive on the heights of buildings in light of other considerations on a case-
by-case basis, the City Staff feels that it is in the best interests of the City of La Porte to
eliminate the stated height restrictions for commercial/industrial properties. In lieu of the
current restriction of 45 feet, each project would be reviewed on its own merits and in
relation to the existing Fire Code and IBC to determine supportability. In addition, the
Planning Department would assume the flow testing duties to ensure fire suppression
capabilities in relation to the height of the proposed structure. We believe that this
measure represents an equitable balance between economics and safety.
Recommendation:
Upon the conclusion of the workshop held on October 21, 2004, the Commission
reached a consensus that the 45' maximum height rule remains intact. The stated
reasons are as follows:
. There have not been many requests for variances or special exceptions to the
rule and P&Z felt the action to remove the rule was premature.
· Several members felt that the 45' rule remained a valuable tool to monitor
growth and development within the City and was in the best interests of the
citizens to review applications on a case-by-case basis regarding the
maximum height of development.
It is, therefore, recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward
their official position for action by City Council that the maximum height rule of 45'
remain in Chapter 106 (Zoning).
riJ
....
:::
~
8
~
r...
....
~
0"
~ o:l
r... ....
~ .:
~ <l.l
r... i::
~ ~
- ....
~ ;j
.... '"
....
::: ~
~
"'l:l ~
.... ~
rJJ
~ 0
r... ....
~ .~
....
~ Si
- ~
..c ....
~ ~
~
~ Q:l~
~ ~
M -..
~ ...0
0 ~
1""'1
~ $
~
00
Supp. No.9
ZONING
~ 106-333
I I
N ...... ~ ~ i
'" .::: ""\j <: I <: <'1, ~ <'1, t" ~ t~ i
.... b~ s.~ ...... ~ ~ ...... ....., lD I
- .... 0 \,,;;l '-' ~ i ~ ~ 1;-.1 C'1 t.O
C :.. .:: ~ :: C') I ...... ...... ~ I
.~ ~ ~ t~ t,~ ~ ~.:...,.; (;;"'- t~ t" I
.S ~ 2' ,",' 0
(j 0 0 0 <:0 0 0 lD 0 t.O I
~ V ~~ex:: "'<t' e<:l t.O "''"J t- t.O I
~ I
.... ...... I 1
i
~ ::: '" I <lJ (\j (\j Cli C)
'" <:.;~ I ..... ....., ..... ..... .....
;:: ~ l':j . ~ ::2 0 g 0
Q,~CIJ I 1 1 r-l r-l <'1, ::: r-l r-l ::: .-<
...... 0 ./. ~ .;:l 'Ii: .0 'Ii: Z ..... 'Ii: ..... 'Ii: ..... 'Ii:
.:: ~ ~ S I C 0 0 0 0
I 0 0 0 0 .:;)
~ '" ~'-i ~ t;r., t;r., t;r., ~
ClQ I
I
.... I I
:::: .~ i
I ::; ~ 0 <1"1 0 ~ 0 <: ~g <'1, 0 0 ~ 0 g 0 <el
N "" ~I' 0 ~ ~I CD ~ 0 ~ ...... 0 0 '<t< 0 0......'
::: :::;: -... It:l :::> ...... 0 ~2
':t CI) t: IJ.J .-< ""1' ,....." e<:l ...... ,....., e<:l CD 000 Z "'<t' ,....., t.O .-< e<:l
en ,..., I 0 t- o '<t< ...... 0 r-l 0 t-
~~ ~ ......1 ""1' ......'
~ ~ I
I
!
I
E: I I
.... I
.... ....; I ....; ....; ....; ....; ....; ....; ~
E:~ t;r., I t;r., t;r., t;r., ~ t;r., ~ ~
'- ......
H: ~ L'"J I It:l "''";l ....., lD It:l lD LC
j~ e<:l I ""1' e<:l '<t< e<:l ""1' "'<t' C'1 I
I
~ i !
I i
I i
~. c~ I I
N CI,) eti ;::: ... i
.... .." LC It:l s: 0 L':l 0 0 LQ j
:::! _-?'~c6 ... J., l.!-:, C'1 6 C'1 C'1 6
- ::: Cl ~ '" 0; ;::i 6 6 6 I
.... r-l r-l r-l r-l
'N "'~ ..0 . ... J:, l.!-:, 6 C'1 6 ~ C'1 6 I
N ...... t3 ~..,. J:, J:, I
~ ~,j l.':l
CIJ ....:i ~ ... C'I C\I C\I C\I C"l C\I C'I C'1
.... I I
Co< ..,
- I I
.... I
.... - !
:::! - I
..... ..... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.... 0 ~ I 0 0
'.., ~ ~ ....:i LC r-l ""1' CD "'':l C'1 r-l ""1'
~
<;
I
:::i I
.... I
.., ....Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ CD 0 I
0...... 0 1.'"J 0 0 0 0 0 0
'N ~ tl eti 0 e<:l l.'";l 0 0 0 0 LC I
::: CD "'<t' CD CD C'1 ""1'
~ ~ '<t< C'I
I <; ~
I ... ~ - I
I ..8 "0 rJJ (\j
~ ... aJ "0 b.O i
..8 T-' 0 .~ c:
? Ii) 0 '00 I
'" :J) '0 0
<<:l I ;.0 :> .~ ;::
..... a; ,.. 0..... 0
C) ~ 0- S 88 ..c:
"0 I cJ; <:..;
a a a C) :>, ~. "0
,.. ...00. M ~ I
~ - .~ rJ) (l) ~~ I
c: S 5 .;:= a (l) >< :1: ;:: I
..... ..... .2 S rJ) (l) OJ .....
~ I r.S ~ ~ '" -a :... S <:..;
Q) 0
dJ oJ ~ "+j"....,J ~ :1: ~ c$
CJ I 0 1.1)-::: ..c: I
I .2:l i-< (l) ;::
~ ~ "'5ii - -" c: "0 ... .:= i
CI,) 0. OJ:: 5 c:
"" I c: Cli c: :; c:: '00 ::l ~ I
~~ :3 ;::
:zi iZi en 0 iZi 0 ,0 ;::i~ ;2; ~ !
..... ::-< cr' 0
CD106:47
EXHIBIT "K"
ARTICLE Ill. DISTRICTS
DIVISION 3. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sec. 106-443. Table B, commercial area requirements.
(a) Table 8, commercial area requirements.
Uses
Minimum
Landscaping
Required
5
Minimum
Yard
Setbacks
F.R.S.
1,3,4,6,7
Adjacent to
Residential
Minimum Yard
Setback
F.R.S.
2.6
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Height
(feet)
6% Density Intensity Regulations Specified in Table B, Residential
area requirements, section 106-333
CR Comm. Recreation Dist.;
all permitted or conditional
NC Neighborhood Comm.;
all permitted or conditional
GC General Comm.; all
permitted or conditional
Outside sales or services
6%
50%
20-10-0
20-10-10
6%
40%
N/A
20-10-0
5-5-5
20-20-10
N/A
Same as
principle
use
Same as
Principal
Use
See article VII of this chapter
Outside storage
N/A
20-10-5
N/A
Freestanding on-premises
signs
Freestanding on-premises
signs located in controlled
access highway corridors
See article VII of this chapter
(b) Footnotes to Table 8.
45
45
N/A
See section
1 06-444{b)
1. A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be required adjacent to all designated conservation
areas. Buildings, parking areas, loading docks, outside storage, and refuse containers will not be
allowed in such setback areas. These areas are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and
groundcover, with a planting plan required to be submitted and approved by the enforcing officer,
Required landscaping must be maintained by the property owner and/or occupant.
2. Screening is required in conformance with section 106-444{a).
3. All yards adjacent to public right-of-way must be a minimum of ten feet.
4. The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement shall be three feet.
ZONING
~ 106-522
and city council may require that efforts to reduce the potential noise impact be
undertaken. These efforts may include screening, landscaping and site planning
techniques.
(Ord. No. 1501U, ~ A(art. B), 9-23-96; Ord. No. 1501-AA, ~ 6, 3-23-98; Ord. No. 1501-BB, ~ 5,
9-15-98; Ord. No. 1501-II, ~ 5, 3-27-00)
Cross reference-Sexually oriented businesses, ~ 90-31 et seq.
Sec. 106-522. Table B, industrial area requirements.
(a) Table B, industrial area requirements.
Minimum
Yard
'1Minimum Maximum Setbacks
Landscaping Lot F.R.S.
Requirements Coverage 1.3,5
Uses (percent) (percent) (feet)
BI business-industrial park; 6 50 50-40-30
all permitted or conditional
LI light industrial district; 6 70 20-10-10
all permitted or conditional
HI heavy industrial district; 6 30 50-50-30
all permitted or conditional
Loading docks N/A N/A 130-130-130
Outside storage
N/A
N/A
20-10-5
Shipping containers
-On- and off-premises free-
standing signs
6
N/A
50-50-30
See article VII of this chapter
Adjacent to
Residential
Minimum
Yard
Setback
F.R.S.
2.5
Maximum
Height
(feet)
(feet)
50-40-30
45
30-50-50
45
100-150-150
456
Same as
principal
use plus
130 ft.
N/A
Same as
principal
use
Section 106-
444(b)
100-150-150
367.8
Freestanding on-premises
signs located in controlled ac-
cess highway corridors
(b) Footnotes.
1. A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be required adjacent to all designated
conservation areas. Buildings, parking areas, loading docks, outside storage, and
refuse containers will not be allowed in such setback areas. These areas are to be
landscaped with trees, shrubs, and ground cover, with a planting plan required to be
submitted and approved by the enforcement officer. Required landscaping must be
maintained by the property owner and/or occupant.
2. No buildings, parking areas, loading docks, outside storage, or refuse containers will
be allowed in such setback areas. These areas are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs
and ground cover, with a planting plan required to be submitted and approved by the
enforcement officer.
See article VII of this chapter
Supp. No.4
CDI06:69
D
NO BACKUP PROVIDED FOR THIS ITEM
Message
Page 1 of 1
Gillett, Martha
From: Feazelle, Debra
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:49 AM
To: Gillett, Martha
Subject: FW: SH146 Response Letter
admin reports for 1-10-05
-----Original Message-----
From: Joerns, John
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:15 AM
To: Alexander, Cynthia; Gillett, Steve; Saba, Wayne; Alton Porter (E-mail 2); Alton Porter (E-mail); Barry Beasley
(E-mail); Chuck Engelken (E-mail); Debra Feazelle (E-mail); Howard Ebow (E-mail); Louis Rigby (E-mail); Martha
Gillett (E-mail); Mike Clausen (E-mail); Mike Mosteit (E-mail 2); Mike Mosteit (E-mail); Peter Griffiths (E-mail);
Tommy Moser (E-mail)
Cc: Lanclos, Melisa
Subject: FW: SH146 Response Letter
At the SH146 meeting the alignments recommended by the original steering committee
were displayed including the by-pass for the Seabrook section.
In addition there were two other alternates shown for the Seabrook area and its
transition to Kemah which were developed as part of continuing discussions with
Seabrook and others.
The City expressed in the past support for the by-pass through Seabrook. Unless we
hear different from Council. I assume La Porte will continue to support the by-pass.
Council, please weigh in on this. In addition to the above I would like staff and
Council's thoughts on the following.
. Shoreacres overpass-turned east to west to bridge railroad
. Hike/bike trail-shown through Seabrook
. Entry/exits-any locations better than shown for getting trucks on/off SH146 to
lessen effect on proposed residential areas East of SH146-iI)J~JJLwQ.Lc.Qln~!
In addition encourage that construction of the Wharton Weems overpass accelerated as
it is one of the more hazardous intersections in this TxDOT District.
Deadline for responsehLJJ:lIJUaryJZ,2005.
Please review the attached letter and we will also place the handout received in
Council's box.
12/22/2004
DRAFT
December 22, 2004
Mr. Pat Henry, P.E.
Texas Department of Transportation
PO Box 1386
Houston, Texas 77251-13 86
RE: SH146 Public Meeting December 14, 2004
Dear Mr. Henry,
The City of La Porte has followed the progress of the SH146 Major Investment Study since its inception.
The City has additionally closely followed the re-examination of Segment 3 from FM 518 to Red Bluff
Road and supports the Arterial with Express Lanes Alternative through the Seabrook-Kemah area
presented at the Public Meeting held December 14,2004 in La Porte for the following reasons.
. Arterial with Express lanes was originally selected as the best alternative for Segment 3 after
extensive study and public input. It provides for the greatest capacity, both for thru traffic and
hurricane evacuation.
. Safety is improved because thru traffic would not be subject to entry/exit movements oflocal
traffic.
. Thru traffic would not be subject to local congestion. Other alternatives, especially the arterial,
would subject through traffic to local congestion.
. Economic impact of existing business would be less with Arterial with Express Lanes. Based on
previous information, construction of an express lane would affect approximately 20 businesses,
with some perceived loss of impulse spending from thru traffic. Construction of any other
alternative would affect approximately 55 businesses and construction disruption would affect
existing businesses, local and thru traffic for several years.
. Concerns with access for major roads from the express lanes can be adequately addressed during
the design phase of the project.
For the other segments the City of La Porte supports the original recommendations of the MIS Steering
Committee with the following comments or exceptions.
· The three Seabrook-Kemah alternatives each depicted a shared use path. The City of La Porte
would like the same consideration through its community.
· Although not in La Porte, the rail crossing in Shoreacres is used by La Porte residents and is often
blocked by trains. With the Port of Houston's long range plans to construct another rail line there
is a concern for greater interruptions for rail service. Could the proposed overpass be oriented
east-west and bridge the rail lines?
DRAFT
In addition, we encourage that construction of the Wharton Weems overpass accelerated us it is one of the
more hazardous intersections in this TxDOT District.
Sincerely,
Alton E. Porter
Mayor
JJ/ml
c: City Council
Debra Feazelle, City Manager
John Joems, Assistant City Manager