TMAPC Public Hearing - PlaniTulsa

[Liz Wright]

Hi all -
On Tuesday March 23 from 6-9 pm at City Hall, TMAPC will hold its third public hearing regarding the comp plan. Between the PlaniTulsa logs and the public input we have much to consider and are honored to be entering our review in the near future.

Hopefully on Tuesday we will hear from those who have been unable to attend previously. What is helpful is to bring to our attention issues we haven't heard before. While public comment will soon close so we can begin review, the process is far from over. We will be sending the plan back to Fregonese for editing, wordsmithing, and it will come back to use for further examination. There may be one more public hearing at that stage. Once the Plan is perfect we will recommend it to City Council.

I personally would like to hear whether sections make sense. For example, the housing section had a rather dreadful run-on sentence. The plan should be a source of pride for Tulsans and readability is a must. I will be reviewing comments on Tulsa now this week-end so please add your two cents.

Also - I was scouting around the web and found this rather succinct site that discusses comp plans and their components. So if you are interested ..

http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1269.html

Best to all -
Liz Wright

[patric]

Hi all -
On Tuesday March 23 from 6-9 pm at City Hall, TMAPC will hold its third public hearing regarding the comp plan. Between the PlaniTulsa logs and the public input we have much to consider and are honored to be entering our review in the near future.

Hopefully on Tuesday we will hear from those who have been unable to attend previously. What is helpful is to bring to our attention issues we haven't heard before. While public comment will soon close so we can begin review, the process is far from over. We will be sending the plan back to Fregonese for editing, wordsmithing, and it will come back to use for further examination. There may be one more public hearing at that stage. Once the Plan is perfect we will recommend it to City Council.

I personally would like to hear whether sections make sense. For example, the housing section had a rather dreadful run-on sentence. The plan should be a source of pride for Tulsans and readability is a must. I will be reviewing comments on Tulsa now this week-end so please add your two cents.

It's very encouraging that these are being taken seriously, so Im hoping the opportunity hasnt been misused.
Ill ask forgiveness in advance for my run-ons, but since my work schedule has limited my participation, Ill take one last shot at input.


My open letter to PLANiTULSA:

May I congratulate all on the months of work and public participation
that has gone into PLANiTULSA, and express my desire that this body of
work remain intact and inclusive of all that input.

I am very enthusiastic about the PLANiTULSA process to update our
blueprint for progress, but I'm concerned that a vitally important
detail of our city's growth was overlooked.

Streetlights are among a city's most important and expensive assets,
accounting for almost 40 percent of many city's electricity bills.
Yet for years Tulsa has invested in street lighting that is not only
unnecessarily expensive, but counter to growth and safety.

Good street lighting not only sets the tone of a city's image, but can
be instrumental in maintaining a vibrant, safer environment after dark.
...but not just any street lighting can be considered "good" or
accomplish these desirable goals.

Any municipal street lighting system must be designed to improve one's
ability to see at night.  All other concerns are secondary.
Street lighting should be as free from glare as possible, with
illumination levels and uniformity that compliment human vision and the
environment.
Streetlight systems should not be designed to "burn" a minimum amount of
energy, but rather provide the appropriate amount of light given the
task and surroundings.  That may mean lower-wattage, yet better focused
light.

I call upon PLANiTULSA to include a concise, written plan for street and
municipal outdoor lighting to be a part of the city's new Comprehensive
Plan.
Tulsa should require, by ordinance, that street lights purchased,
installed or maintained with public finds meet minimum efficiency
standards (such as the new EnergyStar rating for streetlights), and that
any streetlight be warranted by demonstrating that such installation is
needed to (and actually will) benefit nighttime vision.

The use of quality-of-living and vision-conscious tools like the
"Kennebunkport Formula" for avoiding waste and light trespass should
also be a de-facto step in this process.

Many communities throughout the country have re-examined their street
lighting and have corrected many of the mistakes we are currently
making.  Some lighting ordinances have stood the test of time for
decades, and provide many models we could study.  The American Medical
Association has even gone on record with a resolution calling for better
designed streetlighting.

Thank you once again for this monumental opportunity to better the
growth of Tulsa, and for your sincere attention to the needs of all of
it's citizens.
I would like to close with the words of the AMA, in their resolution:


RESOLVED That our AMA advocate that all future outdoor lighting be of
energy efficient designs to reduce waste of energy and production of
greenhouse gasses that result from this wasted energy use, and be it
further

RESOLVED That our AMA develop and enact a policy that supports light
pollution reduction efforts and glare reduction efforts at both the
national and state levels; and be it further

RESOLVED That our AMA support that all future streetlights will be of a
fully shielded design or similar non-glare design to improve the safety
of our roadways for all, but especially vision impaired and older
drivers.





     

[Bubblehead]

I was unable to pull up the Ethics Code for the Planning Commission.

Will any of the members of the Planning Commission need to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest?

[Bubblehead]

Is that in writing in the code of ethics for the Planning Commission?

And if so how does the average citizen bring this issue up?

[Bledsoe]

Here is the link to the TMAPC web site.  It has a link in which you can download the Code of Ethics:

http://www.tmapc.org/

[Bubblehead]

Thanks for the link to the TMAPC but I still can't get it open.

Is it operator error?

Councilor Bynum recused himself from 2 votes on the city council last session due to a conflict of interest. Should we expect the Planning Commissioners will do the same?

[Bledsoe]

Here is the actual code of ethics-downloaded and attached below as a pdf.

Phil Marshall is also a builder and member of the HBA:

http://www.philmarshallproperties.com/

Marshall was or is a member of the board of the Brookside NA.

I have heard a rumor that Marshall may likely be renominated by Bartlett after his replacement, John Judd, former Brookside NA Pres. and McGraw realtor, was turned down by the council on March 3rd:

http://www.mcgrawdavissonstewart.com/photo/agents/3979.htm

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12087707

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100304_11_0_Tulsas104138

Judd is a registered Republican, but is listed as a supporter of Karen Keith's CC Dist. 2 race (http://www.karenkeith.org/supporters.php) as is Marshall and myself.  Marshall is a Democrat.

Commissioners continue to serve until their replacements are appointed.  If the Mayor does not nominate a replacement within 60 days after a term expires the council can make the appointment:

"All mayoral appointments to boards, commissions, authorities, and
agencies created by this amended Charter, ordinance, agreement, or pursuant to
law and requiring Council confirmation shall be made within sixty (60) days from
the creation of the vacancy or expiration of an existing term, or within such
additional time as may be authorized by the Council, for good cause shown.
Upon omission of the Mayor to timely appoint any such member, such
appointment shall be made by the Council." Tulsa City Charter, Art. XII, Sec. 11(B).

Marshall's term expired on 1/18/10

[Rico]

"Will any of the members of the Planning Commission need to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest?"

funny.....funny.........very funny..........!

[Townsend]

The Planning Commission will hold a special meeting to discuss possible modifications to the comprehensive plan at 1:30 p.m. today at City Hall.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100331_11_0_ThePla893813

Anyone know an outcome?  Were they all winking at the developers?

[Rico]

  Anyone know an outcome? 

Were they all winking at the developers? 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With the hope that I will be corrected by someone more literate in the  overall definition of the meeting results ; I will take a stab at what appears to have happened so far and what it will mean to the overall plan...
Please excuse my sarcasm..


The plan's two defined areas.. "stability and growth" are to be softened in what they are to be called.?
resulting impact on plan= negligible

The City of Tulsa will maintain it's working relationship with INCOG.
resulting impact on plan=Dwayne Alberty retains the title of "Capo dei capi". The plan will be assigned to the very group that through the leadership of Mr Alberty.. and jurisdiction assigned them.. have been an ongoing problem with bringing about any substantive change in recent years.

This news would make me extremely happy if I were wanting to run by essentially the same basic rulebook that I had been using for 30 years or so.

This part is just an assumption on my behalf...." INCOG more than likely would assemble the "code" using it's planning department."

Then would have the authority to determine whether or not future development met the new criteria of the "Plan".

With the absence of a new governing and planning structure..., to set a new plan and future planning and development in place, I fear the results will be akin to having Charles Norman write a new zoning code.
Not that I disliked Charles Norman, or lacked respect for his work, but this New "PlaniTulsa" should sound (alien) to the previous crew.
Either that, or the resulting impact of PlaniTulsa will be quite predictable, IMO.

Possibly " p m" or someone else can show me how I am very, very, very, wrong. I hope they can!

[a guy with an opinion]

No decision was made concerning the role of INCOG in the future of Tulsa (planning, zoning, PLANiTULSA, transportation, etc.).

What actually happened during the meeting?

In the vision document, the language recommending a role change for INCOG was made less specific. The organizational structure should be reviewed and changes that would aid the implementation of PLANiTULSA considered. This is the language found in the first publication of the Vision.

In the five chapters of the Comp plan similar language changes were made so that a specific organizational change is not identified.

This seems appropriate. The first step is to create and adopt a new comp plan, the second step is to evaluate the organization and its structure to determine if changes are necessary to facilitate efficient and effective implementation. Comments concerning outside influence of individuals and/or departments would be helpful during the second step.

[Rico]

(From the Tulsa World Article regarding the TMAPC meeting to produce a "Clean" document to be considered.)

"The current plan's strategies, outlined in its accompanying Vision summary, include a consultant's recommendation that the city take over the local planning services that it now pays the Indian Nations Council of Governments to perform.

But commissioners stepped back from that idea, voting instead that the less-prescriptive language in an earlier draft be restored to the strategies section of the Vision summary. "

From the Tulsa World article...   

I guess I just read something into this that would allow INCOG to continue it's role.

The City had some very good planners in the past. It would be a very huge step in the direction of change to allow our local talent to put this in play.

Like I said.... just my opinion. INCOG is riddled with loopholes. This plan will not re manufacture INCOG.

Enforcing a new law with the same lawyer, judge, and jury might not be the way to go.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Tulsa's got a plan??


Are they really letting Carlton Pearson on the board?  He is a good guy, but am surprised he hasn't been shunned.

[Rico]

                              ^               ^                   ^

                                     ?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Due to his epiphany a few years ago (and being declared heretic by his church).  I happen to agree with him to the extent of what little I have heard about his Gospel of Inclusion.  Most of Tulsa isn't quite as "understanding".

New Thought movement sounds like there is a lot of Plato involved....