The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/moratorium-no-more-downtown-sidewalk-cafes-until-completion-of-walkability/article_9448ed3f-6fa0-58b0-9088-4f39d4b04076.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/moratorium-no-more-downtown-sidewalk-cafes-until-completion-of-walkability/article_9448ed3f-6fa0-58b0-9088-4f39d4b04076.html)

I'm under the opinion this is a way to ticket businesses instead of actually caring about walkability. Why? I've kept up with local politics for the past decade and I wasn't born yesterday.

I'm under the impression it's to keep people from hogging a public right away without permitting/inspection....

Give me an example of where this is an issue.

For me, a sidewalk café is almost never an issue, as long as nothing is attached to the sidewalk or obstructing pedestrian traffic. 

I've had to squeeze by Ti Amo on Cheyenne a few times, with the fence bolted down to the sidewalk there.

There's another fence bolted to the sidewalk on 5th near Cheyenne, in front of the Mayo Hotel.  That fencing leaves a little more space than the Ti Amo fence, but not much more.

I think the plastic fencing at Billy's near 5th and Main is weighted down with sand or some other ballast, not attached to the sidewalk.  And the walking surface is much wider there, so getting around Billy's fence isn't a problem. 

Overall, a sidewalk café tends to add to walkability in most cases, but I think the more "permanent" obstructions such as fences and railings make certain sidewalks less walkable.

Examples:

1. Ramps, steps, and rails along the south side of 7th, west of Boston.
2. Ramps, steps, and rails in the sidewalks near the northeast corner of Main and Archer.
3. Rails on the north side of Mathew B. Reconciliation Way, west of Elgin near the Gates Hardware building.
4. Fencing on the east side of Cheyenne, north of 3rd.
5. Fencing on the north side of 5th, east of Cheyenne.
 

Sidewalk cafes absolutely add to walkability. I emailed Jeff Speck today and he kindly responded with the same sentiment. Curious on Ti Amo so I will check out their set up tomorrow.

This isn't just sidewalk cafes. It is anything over a sidewalk.

I was involved in getting an awning above some downtown windows (over a sidewalk) that took a year for the city to approve.

It's an issue...That does not need to get worse...People walking should not be forced to walk in the street so someone can set up shop on the sidewalk...

That's over the top time wise....

Nah, sounds about average for the city.  Unfortunately.

My latest experience with the permit office was stellar....It would be interesting to investigate what caused RM's hold up and if thats the norm...

What I don't like is how narrow the sidewalks are on some of our major streets like Boston Avenue.  They are absurdly narrow.  

I do put out 4 chairs and a "robot" and I place them in line with the trees/planters and light poles to keep the sidewalk free, but even then there is only room for a couple of people to walk side by side through the entire sidewalk area along that street.  I will look into getting a permit when they get the new rules out.  Will be interesting to see just what the rules will be.  

I also wonder about the "cement" part of the sidewalk that is right next to the buildings.  I have a bit of a covered inset where my doors are and have a planter in that space on either side of the doors. I assume that is the buildings property and thus regulated by the building owners rules?  But then there is the strip next to the building and have a planter there as well.  Is that regulated by the building or the city?

Course even what is inside can be regulated.  My "Open" sign should legally have to have a permit for there is an ordinance that says no interior signage within 15" of the glass without a permit.  I have read through a lot of the "rules" and such and if we wanted to be sticklers about things I could probably go down the street and shut every business down or cite them for violations.

I always knew this day would come sooner or later.  It's been "wink wink nod nod" on the sidewalk stuff for a while because people have been thrilled to the dickens just to see any sign of life downtown lol, BUT we all knew that sooner or later things would get busier and it might get out of hand and or someone would complain and the party would come to an end lol. Hopefully the rules will allow for some flexibility and not be too draconian.  

There also were some banner signs on the building by my space up until a few months ago.  The 3  sets of rods over my store are still there and I was thinking of hanging some small, less wind catching, "Books" "Toys" "Gifts" signs from them.  Hope they get the rules up and changed before the holidays that little bit of extra signage will help.

The fencing around sidewalk patios is to comply with ABLE Commission rules.

I don’t see anything in the article indicating the city is going to put the kibosh on sidewalk cafes - rather it wants to implement rules for approving such licensing/uses consistent with the walkability study the city has commissioned.  While I like sidewalk cafes, private business owners do not have a right to unilaterally seize public property for their own private for-profit use without permission by the city.  It appears this is what has been happening in some instances.

Jeff Speck's firm has conducted several walkability studies already.  In those studies, protecting the sidewalk with trees and parking along the curb is the important issue, not licensing cafés or other uses. 

However, sidewalk width was specifically mentioned in the walkability study for Fort Lauderdale:

(from page 18 of the Fort Lauderdale Downtown Walkability Analysis, submitted by Speck & Associates, January 15, 2013)

I'm not familiar with sidewalks in Fort Lauderdale, but I'd like to check out Broward, Andrews, and East 3rd on Google Maps to see how the sidewalks there compare to Tulsa's.

As I see it, this sidewalk café "issue" is really a non-issue for Tulsa.  It shouldn't be a high priority for the Mayor's Office, and I don't see how Jeff Speck's walkability study will change anything, or why the City of Tulsa needs to wait on the completion of any walkability study.  If a minimum 6-foot clear zone was Speck's recommendation for downtown Fort Lauderdale, then 6 feet ought to suffice in Tulsa.

ABLE Commission regulations or not, fencing attached to public sidewalks shouldn't be allowed.  The clear zone at Ti Amo is relatively narrow.  So is the clear zone near Prairie Artisan Ales in the Universal Ford building along Main St.  I haven't measured those clear zones, but I have noticed that they cause walkability choke points in the sidewalks ... very minor in the big picture for people who are able to walk around them ... more an issue for people using wheelchairs.
 

The example I think of is on Boston, specifically with the tables in front of Mods.  We sat at those once, but there were 5 of us.  It was either obstruct the middle of the side walk, set a chair right next to the car there, or have one of us (me) sit in the 2seater right across from it.  Just felt like we were in the way the whole time, especially with elevated Wednesday night foot traffic.

I also thought about Mods earlier.   We eat at Elote across the street often.  Elote's patio is inset from the curb, with I think maybe one two-top actually on the sidewalk, so there is little obstruction.   With Mods, the tables are definitely an obstruction.  I parked on the curb immediately in front of Mods a week or so ago, and there were two women setting at a table so close to the curb (literally only a few inches from the curb) that it made me uncomfortable while parking.

When I see people seated on the sidewalks near Mod's or Elote Café, I simply walk by them.

It has little or nothing to do with caring about walkability.  

I'm under the opinion that someone complained about a sidewalk café or something else in a public right of way downtown.

The article says the city wants to make sure the sidewalk use approval process is consistent with whatever changes its makes based on the walkability study.  Since we are talking about multiple uses for sidewalks, the two seem related and it seems like a smart move to be consistent.  We usually complain on here that the city doesn’t follow through or utilize the many studies it commissions.  Also, a “moratorium” does not imply any currently approved uses are going to be rescinded.

Rusty was interviewed by Channel 6 last night and they showed footage from Mods.  An issue raised by the city is having at least 3 feet for people to get by in wheelchairs.  As well, you are essentially engaged in commerce in public property.

I can see where there has to be some sense of order to what can and cannot be allowed on public right-of-way, otherwise, you have people setting up whatever they want on the sidewalk.  "If that guy can set up tables for his restaurant, I should be able to set up a Photo Booth and charge people to take selfies.”

Where does it end if you don’t have some sort of code for this?  If you aren’t careful, you can end up with something reminiscent of the vendors set up on The Plaza in Santa Fe on a weekend morning.

The City of Tulsa doesn't need to wait on Speck's study or any other study.  The City of Tulsa can begin to establish a set of standards, including a minimum clear zone along public sidewalks, if it wishes.  I doubt if Speck & Associates will deviate much from the 6-foot recommendation in the Fort Lauderdale study.

Jeff Speck doesn't like dealing with b.s., which is mostly what Tulsa's Mayor's Office is delving into with the sidewalk café moratorium.  Sidewalk cafés add to walkability.  They're desirable for walkability.  

$70,000 won't go far if the City expects Jeff Speck to get involved in the sidewalk café moratorium.  Other than the minimum clear zone of about 6 feet, I'm not sure what other recommendations the City is waiting to hear from Jeff Speck.

He has already told Tulsa and several other cities what's important:

1. Protect the sidewalks from vehicular traffic with parking and trees along the curbs.
2. Re-paint traffic lanes, if necessary, at 10 feet wide.
3. Re-paint parallel parking lanes, if necessary, at a maximum width of 8 feet.
4. Keep corner radii at 15 feet or less.  Eliminate swooping curves.
5. Convert one-way streets to two-way.
6. Eliminate traffic signals at low-volume intersections.
7. Require buildings near to or abutting public sidewalks.
8. Do not allow surface parking lots along public sidewalks.
9. Do not allow parking garages with blank walls along public sidewalks.

Tulsa already has a nuisance ordinance concerning obstructions in public streets.  That code is not enforced uniformly.  It's enforced selectively, based on who complains, not the actual problem/issue of accessibility or walkability.

If the City wants to establish a minimum 3-foot clearance for wheelchairs because someone felt uncomfortable getting by the chairs at Mod's, okay ... but I think Tulsa's nuisance ordinance and the Americans with Disabilities Act already cover that issue already without getting Jeff Speck involved in a local tiff that has little or nothing to do with making downtown Tulsa more walkable.

Why is the Mayor's Office concerned with sidewalk cafés right now?  Who is leading this effort?  Someone started it.  

Tulsa already has a code.  Title 24, Section 103, H, I, and J.

Happens often.

It's not an issue at all. I work in the Deco District every single day. We need more sidewalk cafes. The study by Jeff Speck will likely completely agree with that too.

It's suggestive they just want to generate revenue by fining a business though. To me at least.

I've never had a problem walking by Mods but I do see tons of people using them everyday.

Same!

I'd welcome vendors setting up.

I encourage you to reread the article - its says businesses are now starting to set up on sidewalks and then ask for permission later.  The city is trying to write new rules to make this work for everyone.  Business are already required to get permission, i.e. a license to operate on the sidewalk.  Assuming this is intended to shut down sidewalk cafes or a way to use fines to gouge businesses is a giant leap into the assumption pool.

Where did the Tulsa World get information about a moratorium?  When I checked the Mayor's Office's webpage today, I found no mention of a moratorium at all.  According to the Mayor's Office's webpage:


If Engineering Services is continuing to accept applications for license agreements, and if "City staff is committed to work quickly to complete policies and move license agreement requests forward for council action," then how would that be considered a moratorium on sidewalk cafés?

Did the Mayor's Office issue a moratorium?  If so, when and for how long?

The August 9th Channel 6 article doesn't include the word "moratorium," but specifically mentions that the "City of Tulsa is putting all downtown licensing agreements on hold, meaning downtown businesses wanting to install outdoor seating or signs will have to wait."

Where is Channel 6 getting its information about putting licensing agreements on hold?  From the Mayor's Office?  From another City department?

The August 9th Channel 6 article also states:


Again, who at the City is feeding info to Channel 6 and to the Tulsa World?  I've looked at Executive Orders from the Mayor's Office online, and the most recent order posted is about a Route 66 Commission from May 15, 2016.  I didn't see anything about a licensing agreement moratorium.

The August 9th Channel 6 article also states that the "City said it won't require unlicensed businesses to remove its outdoor items. That is unless someone files an ADA complaint and the store is found to be breaking the law."

If any City official or employee actually told Channel 6 that the City won't require unlicensed businesses to remove outdoor items, then which City official or employee said that?  And, if the statement is true, then how is a moratorium on official licensing agreements an effective tool of regulating unlicensed businesses?

Here's the last paragraph from the license agreement policy news item on the Mayor's Office's webpage:


I find this difficult to believe, because I don't think the Mayor's Office cares about walkability.  That lack of concern was demonstrated when Barbo [sic] Cox and some of her neighbors made a video and whined to the mayor about a proposed sidewalk along Riverside.  The mayor promptly issued a moratorium on the sidewalk proposal, so to speak.

This sidewalk usage "problem" is not about Jeff Speck's study, and it's not even about walkability. Something else is going on.  
  

If this is a private commercial use of a public property, then to be consistent, the city needs to insist on $1-5 million insurance policies naming them as additional insureds. That is pretty common from my experience with the city and the county. I'm also pretty sure that the commercial insurance these restaurants and retail businesses use is based on their buildings, not on the city sidewalks which are exposed to greater risk.

Yeah, we totally need a million dollar insurance policy for a couple of people drinking a latte at Mods.

Can you people stop making Tulsa regressive? Please?

You better have when a car runs up on the sidewalk and wipes out the people sitting in the spot you provided.....

what if the car plows into the restaurant and wipes out the people sitting inside? 
what if the guy gets out of his car, goes inside, and kills everyone sitting at the round tables because tables are meant to be square?

I don't see how the restaurant is responsible for either.

I need to provide the Tulsa Airport Authority with $1 million insurance on my private use only hangar at the Jones/Riverside airport in case someone breaks into my hangar and gets hurt.  They could sue the Airport Authority in addition to me.  At least that was the reason given.  I own the structure but lease the ground.

Restaurants can do the same for public use sidewalks.  It's part of dealing with the government.  I don't think it's right but that's the way it is.  You can probably name the City as a co-insured on an existing policy. (Not sure of the exact words but that's the essence of it.)

And a million is getting to be passe'. The state requires $5 million just to drive a passenger bus on state roads. You ever priced a million dollar policy with the city/county as additional insured? It is costly.

David, not saying I like the idea, but it is just reality. When you use public property to make private profit, you expose your company and all the taxpayers to liability. If someone opens their car door into my table on a sidewalk and hot latte sprays on me, you can be sure I'll sue everyone involved. That's what lawyers do. And if your insurance company didn't know you served on that sidewalk and didn't build it into your policy? You pay personally for that oversight. They won't.

Why should downtown businesses get a free pass because we're all so excited to see development there? Sound fair to the shoe shine guy who has to pay a $1million dollar policy to shine shoes at the airport? He could do it downtown and skip?

Your insurance covers in those examples if you have typical commercial policy. You are responsible for actions of others on your property. Even when they tripped on their own feet, even when a crazy shoots up your place (why didn't you have security?) even when it doesn't seem fair, you will be sued and you must defend.

The city is atrocious to deal with. They told us we couldn't have patio furniture on our own property at one store and now we will have to take down a sidewalk sign at another store now. It's stupid, impractical and too much bureaucracy. Go fight homelessness, that's the real issue. Not a damn cafe table. Ticks me off.

Are they going to tell us we have to put away our bike rack too? Even though they can't replace the stolen one the city had. It's no different than a sidewalk sign. Let's just make everything not function, fine everything we possibly can and hopefully a new Pokemon Go will be released every year so people walk around after 5pm. Wait, that's public property too. Should we fine Pokemon Go for using public domain too?

A recent lawsuit has been filed because the company designated someone's backyard as a "Gymnasium". Yes, there will be more regulations and lawsuits over using other peoples private property for commercial gain and the public's property for private gain.

It is always difficult to work with government entities because they have to deal with all the public interests, not just your owners and customers.

Sounds to me like they are trying to define just how those public areas can best be used fairly by private interests with the least controversy. That is better than making judgements on a case by case basis. Isn't it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2785113/Watch-horrific-moment-car-ploughs-Florida-sidewalk-caf-packed-diners.html

This is another reason ya needs insurance....

https://video-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t43.1792-2/13955500_1134974146588848_259291187_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjE1MDAsInJsYSI6MTAyNCwidmVuY29kZV90YWciOiJzdmVfaGQifQ%3D%3D&rl=1500&vabr=354&oh=5dceca90c15dfcd4dcd1385f33de6e36&oe=57AE1B0A


Was in a 5 Guys in Moore a few years ago, not long after it opened, and a woman decided to drive through the front window while we were sitting there.  The bags of potatoes stopped her about 6 ft from the table.  Lots of excitement that day!! 

They put Paul Zachary in front of the camera for last night’s story.  He said the problem is not just patio furniture, they are also looking into making sure in the future improvements like handicap ramps are not being constructed on public ROW but as a part of the private structure.

David- I have a funny feeling if street vendors started setting up in front of your location in downtown and their activities made access to your business more difficult, you’d suddenly have a problem with street vendors.

Problem: no one is asking for permission before they use public space.

Solution: Stop granting permission for people to use public space.

Now ask yourself, does the solution do anything to solve the problem? I get that they don't want to issue permits/licenses that then conflict with the advice on walkability, so issue 180 day permits or some such thing. But the above illustrates the issue here - if the city just stops granting permission, now there's no point in even asking.

The issue needs to be addressed in a coherent manner. So good for them. But this temporary "no more" thing doesn't seem to make much sense.
- - -

Re the liability issue, it would be difficult for the City to face significant liability from public use of a sidewalk. Start with the intervening causes that were given above (person driving their car onto the sidewalk) and end with the liability cap of $175k for governmental torts. Can someone sue them? Sure, but suing the City is often a poor strategic decision. Making the City an additional insured on a reasonable premises liability policy (required for almost any occupancy lease anyway) should be basically nothing.


You are not responsible for the actions of others on your property. You do have certain duties to trespassers (not to do anything likely to hurt them or entice them to be injured), to guests (to warn of known dangers), and to people you invite onto your property to do business (to keep your business in a reasonably safe condition and warn of known dangers). Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction 11.10 defines the duty for business invitees clearly:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=74086

Could you be sued even though someone trips over their own feet? Sure. You can be sued for anything by anyone. I can sue you because you sneezed and I believe it makes you possessed by the devil and therefore responsible for damage to my bike yesterday. Of course, that doesn't make it so. And with a good judge, you would be tossed out of Court and sanctioned.

I had a possessed person sneeze and damage my bike!   Can you represent me...?


JK...

CF, the point is, people sue when they think you: A. Have insurance or means B. Are culpable C. Are arrogant or D. its their means of livelihood.

Therefore, whether they are nuisance or real, you must insure against them and be prepared to pay unless you are a lawyer, have family lawyers or keep one on retainer.

So, in effect you are responsible as a businessman to expect accidents on your property and to be possibly liable for them. You see this as legal jargon, the reality is people pay for other peoples stupid behaviors pretty routinely just to keep the law suits at bay. There have been many payouts at public events, for instance Oktoberfest, where drunks trip over things.

I also wonder why, if the city has little liability (175K) they require millions in additional insured status? Yes, from experience, it is a difficult decision to sue them and returns in time and money small, but I sure wished I had done so. You make no friends with them either way. My advice to entrepreneurs who ask me is yes, be prepared to sue any parties, including govt., who mistreat you. But get a lawyer from out of the region.

I don’t think a short-term license is going to do most businesses any favors, especially if after the short-term license expires the rules are different going forward.  While it might not matter if you're just going to put out a couple of tables and chairs, generally we are talking about more.  Putting up things such as signage, awnings, etc. under a short-term license don’t make much sense unless you can be assured the rules are not going to change and wipe out your investment.

If this moratorium lasts a long time, I would agree it doesn’t make sense.  But from the article, it sounds like the new rules are nearing completion and the city is awaiting the walkability study, which is also supposed to be completed relatively soon.  Of course, this being city government we are talking about, time has a way of slipping into the future....

Thanks for the reference to another Channel 6 report.  I'd forgotten about the seating and fence at 3rd and Lansing. 

In my opinion, the City doesn't need to wait on Jeff Speck to establish some guidelines for using sidewalks.  His recommendation for Fort Lauderdale was a clear zone of about 6 feet.  The City can go ahead and set standards pertaining to clear zones, insurance requirements, time limits, fees, penalties, application procedures, etc.  Other than minimum clear zones on the sidewalks, I don't see how the other issues relate to Jeff Speck's walkability study.
 

From which article?  The Tulsa World link in the initial post?  If so, I didn't see anything about the new licencing rules nearing completion.  Dawn Warrick said her office has been working on a new policy that could be completed soon, not that it would be completed soon.

Also, I don't see anything in the article about the walkability study being completed relatively soon.  According to the article, Jim Twombly said he hopes the walkability study, which City officials could get a first look at next month, will include recommendations on best practices for Tulsa's license agreement policy.  The article doesn't state that Jeff Speck's walkability study will include such recommendations, but that Jim Twombly hopes it will.  The article doesn't state that the walkability study will be completed relatively soon.

Unless it is happening without a lawsuit, that’s just not the case.

At least according to OSCN records, Oktoberfest has been sued once: in 2005.  Tulsa RPA was named as a co-defendant.  RPA has been sued four times in 30 years and won one of those cases.  Mayfest does not show up anywhere on OSCN.

Neither do I.  And I don't see how most of these issues relate to Jeff Speck's walkability study.  Again and again, he recommends allowing parking along the curb to help protect pedestrians on the sidewalk.  $70,000 doesn't go very far with consulting firms when they get sidetracked with silly licensing and insurance stuff.  It's foolish for Tulsa to expect Jeff Speck to delve into non-walkability issues.  That would be a waste of his time and consulting fee.

Unless it is happening without a lawsuit

Unfortunately, RPA employees, past and present, talk about such things. The one that comes to mind is a doctor who tripped over one of the power lines at Oktoberfest when RPA was merely the landlord. There goes 6 figures.

Its easier to pay out cash settlements than proceed with legal actions which would mean they never end up on OSCN. Very common to keep insurance rates low, pr neutral and voters supportive.

Of course most businesses work hard to be responsible and safe. One large payout with lawsuits and press coverage can pretty much end your little sidewalk business.

I still wonder why no one thinks its prejudicial to require other businesses using public property to carry large insurance policies but using public property without permission or insurance by sidewalk vendors is being defended???

Yes, I think the statements you reference support what I said - the rules are close and the city will see the walkability study soon.  My point is that I think some are making a bigger deal out of this moratorium than is warranted by the statements of city officials.  Yes, they could be lying, or incompetent and unable to accomplishing anything when they say they will, or they have other sinister motives that have nothing to do with achieving what they say they intend.  If thoughts of nefarious intentions or blinding incompetence keep you warm at night, more power to you.

Again, at previous firms I've seen dozens  of "slip and fall" type of claims. Very few settled without a lawsuit (I can't think of any actually). Insurance companies are not in the habit of handing out cash because they think its fun. Rather, they make money by NOT paying claims. Its all about game theory - the Plaintiff plays the game once, the insurance company is in it for the long run. So if they can beat down most claims, less claims will be brought in the long run. If they pay out "nuisance" claims, they get more nuisance claims.

At trial "slip and fall" claims are notoriously difficult. Juries hate them. You have to show some egregious behavior that to a significant injury or they don't care. Even suits against Walmart or other evil mega-corporations routinely lose at jury trial.

Throwing around bad slip and fall claims would be an incredibly bad business model. Throwing them at government agencies is laughably bad. The City of Tulsa doesn't settle obvious claims and instead regularly forces jury trials. If RPA is paying out awards, go grab the public records and publish them. They are subject to the Governmental Tort Claims Act and the info is public knowledge. Like this 2015 claim they denied (at G) (http://www.riverparks.org/wp-content/uploads/AGENDA_0416.pdf).

I'm not saying you don't need insurance to protect yourself. I'm not saying there isn't some cost associated with defending crap claims. I'm not even saying that settlements of bad claims don't happen. But my experience actually dealing with such claims is that insurance companies aren't stupid, they don't throw money away when they don't have to. Perhaps the issue is you only hear about it when they do...

Seriously? I had to stop after your first sentence. Two insurance companies I used paid out $20,000 and $10,000 respectively for accidents that the other party was ticketed for but both lawyered up! I complained because its my premiums that rise. They both said it was cheaper to simply pay and be done with it and it was their choice.

Now I'll read the rest of your post. I still want to know why using public property without permission and uninsured is being defended at all.

I'm not talking about fake slip and fall claims though there are plenty of them. When you put a restaurant table next to a curb with car traffic nearby and an injury occurs because a pedestrian had to walk around the tables or a car jumped the curb or the chair leg slipped and on, and on.... even though you took great pains as the owner to avoid such accidents, I think its pretty clear you are going to pay.

No permission to use public property, insurance company not aware of sidewalk service, city not insured against this use but aware of it and you get the case to prosecute? You think the owner will walk?

RPA? Oktoberfest? Ask around.

Thanks for your reply, DTowner.  I'm getting info from six places:

1. The August 8th Tulsa World "Moratorium" article by Jarrel Wade (link in the initial post)
2. An August 9th Channel 6 report
3. An August 11th written statement on the Mayor's Office's webpage
4. An August 11th Channel 6 report
5. An August 11th Channel 23 report (http://www.fox23.com/news/tulsa-city-leaders-concerned-by-some-businesses-blocking-sidewalks/421723859)
6. An August 12th Tulsa World article, "City offers license agreement clarification" by Jarrel Wade

Sources #1, #4 and #6 include the word "moratorium."  Sources #2, #3, and #5 don't.

I think Jarrel Wade's World August 8th "Moratorium" article was poorly titled and poorly written.  It mentioned that the Mayor's Office recently issued a moratorium.  I don't think that's the case, but I'm not sure.  The various articles seem to be contradictory.

I'm not seeing nefarious intentions, but poorly worded statements.  Either the Mayor's Office recently issued a moratorium halting sidewalk cafés, or it didn't.  After seeing the August 11th Channel 6 report and reading the Mayor's Office's webpage, I'm guessing that a moratorium was never issued -or- if the Mayor's Office did issue a moratorium, then it was quickly rescinded/modified/recharacterized/redefined or whatever.

If the City wants to review its licensing policies/procedures, that's okay.  But other than perhaps a clear zone width recommendation for sidewalk usage, I don't understand how Jeff Speck would or should be involved with Tulsa's licensing agreement policy.  His studies are about encouraging pedestrian activities on public sidewalks, such as outdoor dining at café tables.  His study for Fort Lauderdale mentioned a minimum clear zone of about 6 feet on a sidewalk.  Why would the distance be any different in Tulsa?

I can't think of one instance in downtown Tulsa where sidewalk café tables and chairs completely block pedestrian circulation.  I know of a few choke points, but I've never been forced off the sidewalk into the parking or traffic lanes.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen or hasn't happened, but that it hasn't happened to me.

In his August 12th article, Jarrel Wade states that Paul Zachary showed city councilors numerous examples from recent years where contractors built on public property without the proper licensing, but I don't see any mention of when Paul Zachary showed city councilors the examples.  The same August 12th article states that several of Paul Zachary's examples involved not enough room left on sidewalks for a wheelchair to pass, and other examples were from downtown properties built into public rights of way legally, but with unintended side effects caused by the lack of a comprehensive policy.

I'd like to see these examples.  After a quick check on TGOV, I can't find any recent meetings with Paul Zachary's presentation, but I was able to find an agenda online, for an August 11 City Council Urban & Economic Development Committee Meeting.  Regarding Paul Zachary's presentation, I think Jarrel Wade might have been referring to Item 17 on that August 11th committee meeting agenda.  

All of this leaves me wondering what and who started this "moratorium" or whatever else it might be called, and when.  Was it the mayor's office?  If so, why now in the waning days of the current mayor's administration?  Was it a city employee at all?  Was it a complaint?  Was anyone physically injured?  Was anyone damaged monetarily or otherwise?    Is there a timeline for completion other than "soon"?  A deadline?  If so, on what date?

Around 1999 or 2000, when Susan Savage was mayor, the City of Tulsa and Downtown Tulsa Unlimited published a report called "Downtown Tulsa | The Heart of the Region."  The 24-page report included suggestions for a number of projects, including revamping Boston Avenue from 3rd to 7th, which was one-way with four north-bound lanes then.

The report suggested widening the sidewalks along Boston Avenue from twelve to twenty feet.  The proposal was for a twelve-foot north-bound lane, a twelve-foot south-bound lane, and eight-foot parallel parking lanes along each curb.  The stated purpose for the sidewalk widening was to allow for street front retail use of sidewalk space and to create opportunities for additional shade trees at regular intervals along the street.

The accompanying drawing on page 13 of the report shows a series of trees in slightly raised planters (similar to those along Main between 3rd and 4th) on both sides of Boston, alternating with red brick or paver strips and double acorn lights.  The rendering also shows awnings on the west side of the street above the sidewalk along the Thompson Building, and five café tables in front of the Fawcett Building on the east side of Boston.  The portion of the sidewalk adjacent to the buildings appears to have been concrete or granite slabs -- the red bricks or pavers were only used as accents between the tree planters, at the bases of the double acorn light poles.

It appears as though the proposed sidewalk widening along Boston was based on the sidewalks along State Street in Chicago, because a photo taken near the Marshall Field building looking north appears on page 12 of the report, below a photo looking north on Boston.

On page 6 of the report, a drawing of Main Street shows several café tables and vendor carts on the public sidewalks, which also appear to have been concrete or granite slabs, with red brick or paver strips along the curbs.  

On page 8, a drawing of Fifth Street shows four café tables near the Mayo Building where Billy's is now and numerous banners and awnings above public sidewalks.  A street vendor selling flowers is depicted at the south curb line of Fifth Street.

On page 5, the report states that "streetscape and open space improvements in the nine-block core area will encourage more intensive pedestrian use of the street frontage and stimulate private investment along these image streets.  Sidewalk pavements will be widened to provide adequate space for streetscape amenities, furniture, lighting, sculpture, and outdoor café seating."

I don't remember all of the details, but John Chris Bumgarner complained about widening the sidewalks along Boston, and the City revised its plans to keep them at twelve feet wide, with curb extensions near the intersections (creating sidewalks about nineteen feet wide near the corners of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th).

In my opinion, the relatively low volume of traffic on Boston doesn't warrant four moving lanes of traffic.  The mid-block sidewalks could be widened from twelve feet to about twenty-two feet, maintaining a parallel parking lane on both sides and allowing for left turn lanes near the intersections.  But moving curbs is expensive, and moving manholes and drainage structures is VERY expensive.  If the City does decide to widen the sidewalks in the 500 block of Boston, I'd suggest starting near 5th and working south, leaving the manholes and inlets near 6th intact.  That wouldn't require very much regrading to keep the drainage working as it does now.  

Lol..The city does what it should do and people can't wrap their bucking heads around it....

What I can't wrap my head around is why the City needs to wait on Jeff Speck to create a new licensing agreement policy regarding fees, penalties, insurance, etc.

Jeff Speck's studies are about walkability.  He is consistent with his recommendations for making downtowns more walkable and using public sidewalks.  What he advocates can be found in his book, Walkable City, or in the walkability analyses he has already completed for OKC, Fort Lauderdale, Boise, Albuquerque, and Lancaster.

They need a study to back up their decisions. Simple as that. Then its someone else's fault if it fails.

It's not practical. I don't need to wrap my head around anything done at city hall.

I emailed Jeff two days ago and he didn't seem to be able to wrap his head around it either. Confirmed his study will be about making the city as walkable as possible which will include sidewalk cafes.

He responds at Jeff@jeffspeck.com if any of you are interested.

Lol..You're off the reservation....

Its a darn shame he didnt know anything about lighting, or we would have had vision-friendly street illumination much sooner.

No, that's your local politicians.

Sorry, patric.  It was Chris Bumgarner quoted in a 2004 Tulsa World article about the Boston Avenue project, not John Bumgarner.  I've corrected my post from yesterday, but not before you quoted me.

Anyway, the issue was about vehicular traffic flow around 4th & Boston, not the lighting.

I vaguely recall another Tulsa World article about how the new old-timey light fixtures were being manufactured by the same company that made the old old-timey light fixtures used in downtown Tulsa in the 1920s -- Holophane, I presume.

In the Boston Avenue rendering created circa 1998, acorn lights were shown alternating with trees in planters.  I call them double acorns because they have two lenses.  I've looked on Acuity's website today for a photo, but can't find one.  Anyway, they are fairly common, but I don't know the official name.

I talked to him about downtown Tulsa recently, but I haven't tried contacting him since the sidewalk café "moratorium" issue came up earlier this week, and I probably won't bother him with it, either.

Thanks for starting this topic, by the way.  A sidewalk café moratorium wasn't on my radar before you began the discussion.  After seeing several renderings done to promote public sales taxes to fund the re-construction of downtown streets, I thought sidewalk cafés were something to be encouraged, not halted.  Silly me. 

I'm wondering why all those banners and awnings and tables and chairs and vendors were shown using public sidewalks in the public sales tax promotional renderings... 

Did the City want more banners and awnings and tables and chairs and vendors using public sidewalks, or not?

If not, then why would the City and Downtown Tulsa Unlimited hire someone to create promotional renderings for a public sales tax showing banners and awnings and tables and chairs and vendors on public sidewalks?

Did the City of Tulsa, after spending millions of public sales tax dollars to re-construct public streets downtown, not expect to have more banners and awnings and tables and chairs and vendors using public streets and sidewalks downtown?  If not, why?  Was the City expecting to spend millions of public sales tax dollars on re-building streets downtown and then expecting to not get the results shown in the promotional material created to generate public support for those sales taxes?  If so, that doesn't make very much sense to me.

Acorn-style lights have been around almost as long as electric street lighting.  What people dont see in the photos from 1920 is the huge difference in lighting types and illumination levels.

Once the standard for street illumination was the equivalent of a full moon -- about 0.02 footcandles.  It was accomplished with incandescent lamps and gas mantles.

Today street lighting has to compete with commercial lighting in the hundred-footcandle league, which is often blue-rich lighting like Metal Halide or high-CCT LED.   The ballpark standard for Tulsa residential streetcorners is ONE footcandle measured on the pavement directly beneath a streetlight.

Where we fail with "modern" acorns is trying to cram high-intensity sources in an optic meant for low-intensity lighting in an effort to meet present-day lighting expectations.  

Acorns are just great if you respect their limitations and keep the light sources close to their historical appearance and function.  To meet modern lighting needs, though, you need to supplement the ambience they provide with state-of-the-art shielded lights of greater intensity.

Decorative lights should have decorative intensities.
If Tulsa ever needed a street furniture moratorium, it should be High-intensity Acorns.  

Broken Arrow has their new Rose District up and running for a while now.  They did the wider sidewalk thing, narrowing Main Street down to two lanes and leaving the parking the way it was - NOT parallel parking!!  At first, they were going to change to parallel, but it seems like people actually had a city government that listened to them - there were a lot of people complaining about that.

Bottom line - the wider sidewalks are very good thing!!


I wasn't sure how what they showed as the plan would work, but we have been through there several times and it is very nice!  Gonna be going there more often.  The chocolate place is to die for !!!!

This thread is not about lighting if haven't noticed....

It's all connected to walkability.

I think there are people in office that only think about ways to generate revenue instead of livability. I'm also behind skeptical about how my tax money is used locally. Nothing adds up ever besides them covering their tracks.

Why don't you run for office or work for one of them to learn the issues that profession faces? Then talk about it from a better perspective. Easy to criticize them but its a harder job than it appears, otherwise....I'd be doing it!

I thought this thread was about a moratorium mentioned in its title and in the title and in the text of a Tulsa World article by Jarrel Wade.

I thought it was about a moratorium on licensing agreements which, according to the first sentence of the Tulsa World article, was issued recently by the Mayor's Office, halting sidewalk cafés and signage in public rights of way.

Does anyone on this forum know on which date the Mayor's Office issued the moratorium?  I've looked for the moratorium online, but can't find it.  If the moratorium was a written order or directive, I'd like to see it.

I vote and do my part as a citizen. Better suggestion is them come work my job for the day and deal with the issues regarding bad policy that I do.

Your both right... I tend to focus on specifics from time to time.

 
True, but discussions evolve.  At first, I thought this topic was about a moratorium issued by the Mayor's Office.  Now, I'm not so sure, because I can't find the moratorium online.

The Artist responded with a good post about the width and use of public sidewalks, along Boston Avenue in particular.  I replied with information from a report published around 1999 or 2000.  The report was about the design of rights of way in downtown Tulsa, and it included the topics of lighting and sidewalk widths along Boston Avenue.

The proposed design for Boston Avenue featured wider sidewalks (about twenty feet from building face to curb), trees in planters, and a series of double acorn light fixtures similar to this one:
(http://www.usglassmanufacturer.com/images/casestudies/rodeo3.jpg)
Source:  usglassmanufacturer.com

My reply mentioned what I call "double acorn" lights because the re-design rendering for Boston Avenue showed them, although I don't know the official name for them.  Your more specific reply was to my vague reply.  I don't have a problem with it, and I'm glad there are various viewpoints and "experts" on this forum to join the conversation and to share knowledge.  (But I'm sorry I didn't change my wording from Bumgarner père to Bumgarner fils before you quoted me.)
  

"Dual Upright Acorn Luminaire" is what I mostly see them referred to, but they've been called other things (some not suitable for polite company).


A street furniture rendering showing decorative Acorns for ambiance, with Shielded Cobra-head Luminaires doing the actual street illumination.

(http://i.imgur.com/4fwXLVi.jpg)
Source:  American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting RP-8-00, ANSI/IES

Please forgive me while I evolve a tiny bit more...

We now have the unique opportunity to "bring back" the look and feel of the old incandescent Acorns with the advent of newer LEDs.
No, not the ghoulish blue-rich LEDs.  I mean the ones that look exactly like incandescent light... that we have to ASK the salesmen to show us.

Buying the right LED sources let you specify the exact color and intensity you want, and you can make it look like 1920 to your hearts content.
Just make sure you have shielded (Full Cutoff) lights up high to do the actual lighting of the street (see above illustration).  The brightness of the LED Acorns should be such that you can look directly at them without discomfort (usually 1000 Lumens or less).  

So there's the challenge, folks.  Its shovel-ready today.

Have you called the Mayor’s Office?

The News on 6 story on the moratorium seems to indicate it comes from Paul Zachary, director of engineering services.  They now say it isn't a moratorium, just a "slight delay" while they study what they are doing in other cities:

http://www.newson6.com/story/32742450/city-taking-fresh-look-at-how-businesses-use-sidewalks

No

I'm wondering where the Tulsa World got the idea for the lead they published last week, if, in fact, the Mayor's Office did not issue a moratorium halting sidewalk cafés, and if, in fact, no one with the City of Tulsa issued a moratorium at all.

Also, I'm still wondering how the "moratorium" (or whatever the terminology du jour happens to be) relates to Jeff Speck, who has been very clear about what he thinks enhances walkability.  Licensing agreements and moratoria halting sidewalk cafés are not on Jeff Speck's list of the crucial steps he thinks cities need to take in making their downtowns more walkable.  

This isn't just about downtown....

I'm curious about sidewalk cafés using public streets downtown.

Here's a quick list of downtown public streets -- please reply if I've forgotten any:

1. Easton (approximately 3 blocks total length)
2. Cameron (6 blocks)
3. Mathew B. Reconciliation Way (7 blocks)
4. Archer (14 blocks)
5. Admiral (1 block)
6. 1st (16 blocks)
7. 2nd (14 blocks)
8. 3rd (16 blocks)
9. 4th (13 blocks)
10. 5th (9 blocks)
11. 6th (13 blocks)
12. 7th (16 blocks)
13. 8th (9 blocks)
14. 9th (7 blocks)
15. 10th (5 blocks)
16. 11th (15 blocks)
17. 12th (12 blocks)
18. 13th (5 blocks)
19. Lawton (4 blocks)
20. Heavy Trafficway (4 blocks)
21. Houston (5 blocks)
22. Guthrie (3 blocks)
23. Frisco (4 blocks)
24. Elwood (3 blocks)
25. Denver (16 blocks)
26. Carthage (2 blocks)
27. Cheyenne (18 blocks)
28. Boulder (17 blocks)
29. Bob Wills (1 block)
30. Avenue of the Sister Cities (3 blocks)
31. Main (12 blocks)
32. Boston (17 blocks)
33. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Boulevard (4 blocks)
34. Cincinnati (15 blocks)
35. Detroit (17 blocks)
36. Elgin (16 blocks)
37. Frankfort (8 blocks)
38. Greenwood (5 blocks)
39. Hartford (1 block)
40. Iroquois (1 block)
41. Kenosha (3 blocks)
42. Lansing (3.5 blocks)
43. Southwest Boulevard (2 blocks)
44. Baltimore (1 block)
45. 1st Place (1 block)

I can think of outdoor seating on the following nine public streets downtown:

3. Mathew B. Reconciliation Way (about three locations, and I notice a fourth being installed last night near Elgin)
10. 5th (two or three locations)
11. 6th (one location - but that was Lasalle's, and I don't know if any sidewalk seating remains)
27. Cheyenne (one location)
32. Boston (about four locations)
35. Detroit (one location)
36. Elgin (I noticed one location last night that seems to be in-progress, across from ONEOK Field)
38. Greenwood (one location)
42. Lansing (one location)

Please reply with more locations, as I'm sure I've forgotten some or missed a few.  What I'm trying to do is get an idea of the scope of the public sidewalk usage for outdoor seating downtown -- I can remember about seventeen locations off the top of my head, observed by my frequent walks through downtown Tulsa.  Offhand, I can't think of any current seating arrangements that wouldn't allow a minimum path for a wheelchair to pass, although I know of some choke points, as have been mentioned in previous posts.
 

I think different than you do, here are the places I can think of with sidewalk areas:

Lassales
Ellote
Mods
Tovolo (sometimes)
Billy's
Trulas
Topeca
Enso (sometimes/used to have chairs out front)
Laffa
Hodges Bend
Boulder Grill (not on public right of way)
Naples Flatbread (not on public right of way)
Caz's (not on public right of way)
Mexicali (not on public right of way(not on public right of way)
Lucky's (on leased land, not really public right of way)


That's all I can think of.

Thank you for your reply!  Actually, you seem to be thinking very much as I am about the locations, except I'm trying to limit the scope to places using public rights of way downtown.

With that in mind, here's my response to your list:

1. Lasalle's -- I know they had some seating at 6th & Boston, but do they outside the Pythian Building?  I haven't been by their new location, yet, so I don't know.
2. Elote -- on my list
3. Mod's -- on my list
4. Tavolo (sometimes) -- wasn't on my list, but I think I've seen sidewalk furniture there a time or two
5. Billy's -- on my list
6. Trula -- on my list, except I think it has been re-branded as Boiler Room
7. Topeca -- on my list, although their seating is ephemeral
8. Enso (sometimes/used to have chairs out front) - wasn't on my list
9. Laffa -- was on my list because their seating is stored on their own property, but it does extend out a few nanometers into public sidewalks sometimes
10. Hodges Bend -- on my list
11. Boulder Grill, Naples Flatbread, Mexicali, Lucky's (not on public rights of way) -- none of these is on my list because the seating is not on public sidewalks
12. Caz's (not on public right of way) -- Caz's Chowhouse is on my list, because they have a seating area on a public right of way.  If you mean Caz's Pub, then I agree with you: no seating outside their bar, just at the restaurant on the south side of the street.

I was thinking of a few more places you didn't mention:

13. TAC -- just a couple of benches, no tables, as it's an art gallery with food sometimes, not a restaurant
14. Ti Amo
15. Hey Mambo
16. the cigar place north of Hey Mambo
17. Club Majestic
18. STG Pizzeria Gelateria
19. Lefty's
20. something in-progress south of the old Gates Hardware building
21. something in-progress east of the old Gates Hardware building

That's all I can think of right now, off the top of my head from memory.

Next question:  To your knowledge, do the seating arrangements at any of those locations block pedestrian or wheelchair traffic on public sidewalks?  I'd say Ti Amo is iffy, but probably complies with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines on the width of an accessible route passing by the seating.  I'll try to go by there today with a measuring tape, but I stepped it off last night (as my foot is a foot long).  The route needs to be at least 32 inches wide between Ti Amo's fence and the parking meter/sign there, according to my interpretation of the Guidelines.  Not sure .... it's close, according to my trusty "feet."

I don't think any of the other locations have less than a 36-inch wide path passing through or by the tables and chairs, but I'm not certain.  I haven't measured any of them (except Ti Amo with shod feet last night).

A wheelchair can get through everything in the Deco District. I checked it all out last week. Overreaching local government with other motives is the obvious case here.

My curiosity about sidewalk cafés has led to a brief search into municipal regulations in a number of places in the US and abroad.

If Tulsa wants implement an updated licensing agreement policy, then I'd suggest it be relatively simple regarding sidewalk cafés.

With the help of cannon_fodder, I have compiled a list of about twenty locations downtown with private tables, seating, and/or fencing placed on public sidewalks.  I have no idea how many of those twenty downtown locations have current and valid licensing agreements with the City of Tulsa, approved by the City Council, or when those licensing agreements might expire.

But, anyway, here are a few examples of the types of regulations other cities have adopted:

- Minimum clearway on the sidewalk through or adjacent to seating areas.  Most of the minimum required widths I've found range from four to eight feet.

- Insurance requirements.

- Minimum distances from the curb and from any fixed public features such as poles, signs, parking meters, etc.

- Types and dimensions of fencing, when required.

- Scaled drawing and photo submittal requirements.

- Whether or not animals are allowed in the seating area, leash requirements, service animal exceptions, etc.

- Duration and revocability of licenses.

Although I'm not suggesting a bevy of regulations on sidewalk dining in Tulsa, some cities get even more specific in their demands.  Examples:

- All tablecloths and napkins must be real cloth rather than paper.

- All glasses must be real glass -- not cheap plastic or any other material.

- All plates must be ceramic.

- All flatware must be metal.

With such a paucity of pedestrian activity and al fresco dining on public sidewalks in downtown Tulsa, I suggest that the City develop a VERY simple framework of guidelines for sidewalk cafés, and then lift the moratorium as soon as possible.  There's no need to wait on Jeff Speck's downtown walkability study or to hope that he'll include recommendations about best practices for Tulsa's license agreement policy (unless the Downtown Coordinating Council actually commissioned Jeff Speck to include recommendations about Tulsa's license agreement policy -- and I don't think the DCC has commissioned him to recommend anything concerning license agreements, based on what davideinstein posted about his email exchange with Jeff Speck).  I haven't communicated with Jeff Speck about the Mayor's Office's moratorium halting downtown sidewalk cafés, but it does seem contrary to what Jeff Speck's work and studies are all about:  walkability.  But, I could be wrong.  Perhaps Jeff Speck has done a 180 since in the last few weeks, has renounced/abandoned his ten steps to a more walkable down, and has been delving deep, deep, deep into moratoria halting downtown sidewalk cafés.  We'll see...

Later, I'll try to post a very basic framework outline -- just as a starting point for comments/feedback.

I don't know the boundaries of the Deco District.  Does it include Ti Amo?  That's the only location I think might be a close call...

I'm not sure what the local motives are, but, in any case, the ADA is a federal civil rights law, so the City of Tulsa doesn't really need to get into it, other than cautioning about compliance.

After identifying about 370 blocks of public streets downtown, I have compiled a list of approximately twenty locations with private tables, chairs, and/or fencing on public sidewalks.  Not sure about Ti Amo yet, but I can't find any other location that's non-compliant with the ADA (in terms of a minimum width on an accessible route for wheelchair passage).

I could be wrong, of course, as I often am.  

It is also a quality of life issue. While I have seen some ADA compliance issues that seem very arduous or even unfair (to the point a business owner says "not worth it"), keeping a sidewalk clear 36" wide seems to be good not only for people in wheelchairs, with walkers, strollers, large people, lovers holding hands or the visually impairment, but also simply to allow the free flow of people in both directions.

Even if the ADA doesn't come into play, seems logical to me.

Again, thank you for your reply.  The ADA can and does come into play, but it requires a legal action, as I understand it.  36 inches is a bare minimum for passage of a single wheelchair.  There are a few exceptions down to 32 inches for very short distances.  At 200-foot intervals along a minimum 36-inch wide accessible route, a 60-inch wide spot is required for two wheelchairs to pass.

Really, the only reason I'm referring to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines is because Paul Zachary or someone in one of the follow-up reports to the moratorium story mentioned a concern about seating areas on public sidewalks downtown where a wheelchair can't get through.  I just don't know of any location without a minimum 36-inch wide passage, except for Ti Amo.  And the ADA dates back to Bush 41's administration -- not especially recent, in my opinion.  The City of Tulsa could have gotten concerned about the ADA and accessibility anytime during the past 26 years or so.  Why is it so important now?  Was someone denied access on a public sidewalk due to a sidewalk café?  If so, where?  A few minutes ago I walked by a crosswalk at 7th & Boulder with several large holes in it -- definitely non-compliant with ADA Accessibility Guidelines and definitely unsafe and uninviting.  It wasn't a sidewalk café.  It was a public crosswalk in a public street downtown.

A few minutes before I noticed the large holes in the crosswalk at 7th & Boulder, I saw a woman trip on the sidewalk on the 400 block of South Boston Avenue.  She stumbled, but didn't fall, and she had that dorky "I'm such a klutz" look on her face when I noticed a large hole in the sidewalk where she stumbled and said, "It's really not your fault," pointing to the hole.  That public sidewalk has a hole in it -- definitely not the woman's fault, definitely not compliant with ADA Accessibility Guidelines, and definitely unsafe and uninviting.  (She appeared to be a visitor to Tulsa, or not familiar with downtown, at least).  The woman was not harmed by a sidewalk café.  She tripped on a hole in a public sidewalk downtown.  

I walk downtown nearly every day, for miles.  Maybe I'm missing something, but in the "Moratorium" Tulsa World story about halting downtown sidewalk cafés, Jarrel Wade reported that Jim Twombly said the moratorium was due to the increasing misuse of rights of way.  That begs the questions: "What misuse?"  and "Where?"

In the same Tulsa World story about a moratorium halting downtown sidewalk cafés, Dawn Warrick was quoted as saying, "We really have to get a handle on this and make sure our public realm is as safe and inviting as possible.”  Dawn Warrick's quote begs more questions:  "We really have to get a handle on what, exactly?"  "Who is we?"  "How are downtown sidewalk cafés causing the public realm to be unsafe or uninviting?"

Maybe Clay Bird’s tender little feelings got hurt having to step around some people slobbing down Mod’s gelato.  This administration understands dick about progressive development principles, walkability, or attractive uses of public space.

I do understand there has to be some order and process to allow commerce in or on a public space, otherwise you end up with panhandlers posing as street vendors or you have cafe or bar owners blocking sidewalks with their tables and chairs.

Maybe.  I don't know.  But the correct spelling is "tender weedle feeweengs"...


I mostly agree with you about the current administration (maybe not the "dick" part of it).

Here is the last paragraph of the Mayor's Office's news release:


Come on...

Perhaps things will change with G.T. Bynumm [sic].  I hope so.  We'll see...

And I agree with you about having some order and process in private use of public rights of way.  But the Tulsa World article wasn't about panhandlers posing as vendors, vendors posing as panhandlers, bars posing as sidewalks, or café owners posing as chairs.

The Tulsa World article was about the Mayor's Office issuing a moratorium on downtown licensing agreements, halting sidewalk cafés.  It was about Jim Twombly's hopes of what Jeff Speck might recommend -- maybe, possibly, somehow, sometime in the future.   

Completely agree.

Speaking of ADA, how does a business like Elote’ get away without doing an ADA bathroom update since those regs go back well before Elote’ was there. 

IIRC, Nelson’s Buffeteria was grandfathered when the ADA came about, but I thought a new tenancy would require updates.  Is that only in an ownership change?

The TGOV video of the August 11th, 2016 City Council Urban & Economic Development Committee meeting (http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3378) provides more explanation as to what the City is trying to do with licensing agreement policies.  For the moratorium discussion, see Agenda Item #17, which begins about 1 hour and 39 minutes into the recording.

Jarrel Wade's August 12th "City clarifying moratorium on license agreements for private use of public rights of way" (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/city-clarifying-moratorium-on-license-agreements-for-private-use-of/article_3077ac96-cb21-5fa3-9634-8e0849234e8d.html) Tulsa World article mentions that Paul Zachary "showed city councilors numerous examples from recent years where contractors built on public property without the proper licensing and then asked for forgiveness later. Other examples were from downtown properties that built into public property legally but then lack of a comprehensive policy caused unintended side effects."  The same August 12th Tulsa World article states that several of Paul Zachary's examples involved not enough room left on sidewalks for a wheelchair to pass.

The minutes of the August 11th Urban & Economic Development meeting (http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/meeting_detail.php?id=WQ85OWS1222201513503) state that a PowerPoint was presented, but I can't find any footage of the PowerPoint presentation in the video.  Perhaps it was off-screen for the TGOV video.

Anyway, Karen Gilbert begins the discussion by stating that she had been contacted by frustrated developers who had been told that there's a moratorium on licensing agreements with the City.  Dawn Warrick and Paul Zachary responded by explaining some of the issues that the City and developers are facing with the current licensing agreement policy.  According to Zachary, a developer had offered to pay for the use of a right of way, and Zachary felt that was beyond the scope of licensing and getting into the area of leasing.  Evidently, Mark Swiney was absent from the meeting.  To me, it sounded as though he has been the contact within the City's Legal department, working on the licensing agreement policy review.

Regarding ADA and access issues, there was some discussion about the narrowness of Tulsa's sidewalks, ramps built on public rights of way, doors swinging out over public sidewalks, and movable sidewalk café furniture blocking pathways on sidewalks (sometimes, if someone happens to pull a chair into a pathway).  Blake Ewing mentioned Tulsa's "ridiculously wide streets" and "ridiculously narrow sidewalks," and he expressed some hope that planning for wider sidewalks could happen soon.*

Regarding clearways on public sidewalks, Zachary told the councilors that the City likes to maintain at least eight feet around the BOK Center and ONEOK Field.**

Phil Lakin questioned the City Council's ability to revoke a license agreement at whim, with or without cause.  Lakin expressed concern about a business spending lots of money on sidewalk furniture, for example, at the risk of having the City suddenly revoke the business's license agreement.  Warrick replied that she could not think of any city that didn't have a revocability clause, as Tulsa does.***

Toward the end of the discussion, Gilbert once again mentioned the "moratorium" fallout, and Warrick replied that she thinks that the "moratorium" has been cleared up.  In my opinion, I suppose it has been cleared up, to a degree.  But it leaves me wondering why a moratorium was ever mentioned at all, and why there was a front page story published, specifically about a moratorium halting sidewalk cafés.  Either Jarrel Wade or someone else at the Tulsa World first used the word "moratorium" to describe what was going on, or someone else described it that way to Wade or his editor.  Someone started this "story" for some reason.  I'd like to know who, why, when, and how.  Both Gilbert and Ewing mentioned that the news of the moratorium generated some unhappy calls to their offices.

Also, I'm wondering about those examples Zachary reportedly showed to the councilors.  When did that happen?  

*There have been plans for wider sidewalks and narrower streets downtown, such as those on Boston I mentioned in a previous post in response to The Artist.  The plan on Boston, for about five years, was to narrow the street from fifty-six to forty feet and to widen the sidewalks from twelve to twenty feet.  Traffic studies supported widening the sidewalks and narrowing the street.  But Chris Bumgarner complained.  He didn't want the sidewalks to be twenty feet wide.  He wanted them to remain twelve feet wide.  Go down to Mod's or Decopolis and see who got his way, despite the plans, despite the traffic studies, and despite Downtown Tulsa Unlimited.

**Eight feet is less than the six-foot clearway recommended by the author of Walkable City in his Downtown Walkability Analysis report for Fort Lauderdale.  The authors of Suburban Nation state that a sidewalk twelve feet wide is ample enough for al fresco dining, but they don't mention a clearway width.  

***In my research into licensing agreements, I've discovered the same revocability clause in every instance.

I'm trying to figure out why Karen Gilbert would have been getting calls.  D-5 is largely east Tulsa suburbia style development.

Its only if you change usage or if you make "major" changes.  

It was frustrating with the old DECOPOLIS for we almost had to have a sprinkler system along with redoing the restrooms, adding a mop sink etc. because we changed usage.  The frustrating thing is it went from a restaurant to retail, aka went from a place that had things like flames, and hot stoves, food, etc. to selling trinkets and gifts yet we had to upgrade everything to be "safer" and more compliant than if we had stayed a place with open flames etc.

Fortunately before we had to shell out $40,000 plus for a sprinkler system (actually there just never would have been a DECOPOLIS) we dug through the rules and found an exception for being in a cement parking garage.

That old brick smoker pit in the back of your old location would have been a far greater fire hazard than a retail store.  I can't believe it never had to be sprinkled before.

Ya missed one that did it right....You figure it out....

I think she said they were developers, but I can't get the video to play right now.  It's around timemark 01:39

You passed up a perfectly good opportunity to actually contribute.

First he would have to actually understand the concept....

He took the opportunity to sound like an A-hole though.

No.  Stop being dumb and tell us.  If something is doing something 'right', then why be so secretive about it? This isn't like you've got some bs 'confidential source' to protect in the Miss Jackson's/Petty's thread.

I went back to listen to what Karen Gilbert said.  The audio quality isn't the best, and I'm not a transcription expert, self-appointed or otherwise, but here's my best effort:

Karen Gilbert beginning at time mark 01:39:28:

"Yeah, so, I wanted to put this on because I had a few phone calls from a couple of developers that they were given the-- the thumbs down on moving forward on their projects downtown and was told that there's a moratorium on [It sounds as though a male voice interrupted Councilor Gilbert at this point (time mark 01:39:51), although David Patrick, who was chairing the committee meeting, had clearly given Councilor Gilbert the floor just 23 seconds earlier, and she had not yielded to any other person, male or female, as far as I could tell from watching the video.  No one else requested the floor, but someone decided to start talking over Councilor Gilbert at this point anyway, less than 30 seconds after the chair had acknowledged her and had given her the floor.  Although it's difficult for me, not being an expert at transcribing audio recordings, to hear exactly what's being said when more than one person is talking at the same time, the following is my best interpretation of what Gilbert said as she tried to maintain/re-gain the floor...] projects like this, and we haven't had that discussion.  So, just wondering what was going on and you guys could update us, and just wondering how the moratorium was put into place without coming to the Council with that."

Then around time mark 01:40:11, it sounds as though Dawn Warrick tries to start her reply to Councilor Gilbert, but that Paul Zachary (or another male) almost immediately starts talking over Warrick.  When Warrick tries to begin her reply to Gilbert, the camera is still on Gilbert, so I can not see who is talking, but I can hear more than one voice at the same time on the audio track, which is not customary during orderly public meetings (or it shouldn't be, at least).

At time mark 02:10:46, Gilbert had one more comment [to Warrick and/or Zachary, I think -- it's difficult to tell because the camera is on Blake Ewing at that point]:

Karen Gilbert:

"I didn't mean to hit a nerve with you, but it was said in the paper that the Mayor's Office has set a moratorium on downtown development on sidewalks until that walkability study is done.  So I know that there is so much development going on downtown right now that developers are depending on getting their projects completed, and then hearing a moratorium being put in place by the administration without consulting us was concerning to me--" [At this point in the meeting (time mark 02:11:20), Warrick interrupts Gilbert, and then Zachary interrupts Warrick a few seconds later.]

That's what Bamboo World heard.  Bamboo World wasn't at the meeting.  Bamboo World listened to the TGOV recording instead.
   

About time this is being addressed.

Hey Mambo and the cigar place. See how hard that was?

Leftys is another.

Okay, I get it, not like constituent calls, just friendly lobbying calls from interested parties.  Been there.

Good job on doing your homework guys.....!!!

All three of which I included on my list, in a reply to cannon_fodder on August 17th:


But instead of reading and learning, he chooses to remain ignorant and to take swipes at you, patric, and others.  If he had spent a few moments reading the Tulsa World article you linked in your initial post, he would have known the name of the author and purported metrosexual who has been commissioned by the Downtown Coordinating Council to conduct a downtown walkability study.

This is an excellent topic, davideinstein.  I'm so glad you started it.

My August 17th list was an attempt to identify the locations downtown which have private furnishings such as seating and tables on public rights of way.  Then, to further identify the locations that have furnishings which impede or obstruct the free flow of pedestrians or wheelchairs.  I can't think of any, except perhaps for Ti Amo and whatever is being built on the sidewalk near Mathew B. Reconciliation Way and Elgin.  This week, metal barriers were bolted down to the sidewalks there.

Did you listen to the recording, or just read my best attempt at transcribing a bit of it?

I don't know if the developers who called Karen Gilbert are her constituents or not, and it doesn't matter.  But to me, it did not sound as though they were just friendly lobbying calls.  What makes you think that?

Karen Gilbert and Blake Ewing were both at the August 11th City Council Urban & Economic Development Committee meeting.  Other than David Patrick chairing the meeting, the only Councilors I heard speaking about the moratorium were Gilbert, Ewing, and Phil Lakin.

Gilbert remained much calmer than I would have been.  The Council is Tulsa's legislature.  If an ordinance or city policy isn't working, that's okay, but the Council needs to know about it.  Gilbert had seen a Tulsa World article that stated the Mayor's Office had issued a moratorium on an existing policy, and the administration had not consulted/informed the Council beforehand.  That's a problem.
 

So glad that sidewalk cafes are inducing so much passion on this forum.  Hurray!

My understanding is that the city isn't worried about sidewalk cafes where folks put a few chairs and tales out.  As long as they leave clearance for wheelchairs and pedestrians, nobody cares, since these are not permanent structures.  And if it's like most other code violations, the city wouldn't even enforce it unless there are complaints.

The real issue is that there are developers that have built new buildings downtown that didn't allow for wheelchair ramps.  Then, after the building is complete, they can't lease spaces / get a certificate of occupancy without the ramps. So they attempt to just build the (permanent) ramps on public land, aka the sidewalk.  The example I've heard about for a long time is the Green Arch building, but there are probably others.

What caught my attention (thanks to this thread) was a Tulsa World article and some local TV reports about a sidewalk café moratorium that wouldn't be lifted until the downtown walkability study is completed (sometime in 2017, according to the Downtown Coordinating Council).

The ADA ramps and stairs ought to be handled during the design phase, not after they're already built on public sidewalks.  I've noticed several in recent years:

CSL Plasma (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1469027,-95.9904543,3a,87.8y,278.4h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssVUf3PEYUeKlF5L2XGHpUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (but the ramp is mostly on private property, I think)

Bernsen Center (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1498,-95.9883372,3a,75y,139.39h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8kW1152dsa-Eob6VtYgog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Rib Crib (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1565561,-95.9885078,3a,75y,117.68h,92.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQsUNL3HtE6Sw5TVgUFTXmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Naples Flatbread (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1526156,-95.9948647,3a,75y,51.52h,91.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVJFazMFSr9DKQTtRWIU8jw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Pinkitzel (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1529118,-95.9950189,3a,90y,57.24h,90.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4XrhgIdqqr6SCI1bgxpCBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Prhyme (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.15749,-95.9932365,3a,75y,38.88h,90.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szkERhcX16eO1SXyZVFDh3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Harrington Lofts (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.148453,-95.9889521,3a,75y,332.81h,89.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAWWHLkK6zfdbT6cJyRVGsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

And in recent months:

As you mentioned, GreenArch (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1596515,-95.9864834,3a,75y,146.36h,90.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_sp86qcEQSH37jZnEfLWBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Prairie Artisan Ales (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1589253,-95.9939994,3a,75y,55.59h,89.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snzn_GKKwwd_5KlgExaAnfw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Gates Hardware (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.159899,-95.9889871,3a,75y,303.38h,89.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXselbqjLwDd2jZoDYpnVKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (a metal barrier was bolted down to the sidewalks last week)

There probably are more examples.  It's not that the City doesn't care, but various City departments don't have the staff to enforce the current codes. (And cases are complaint-driven, as you stated).  That's why I wasn't too keen on the push for RDO zoning.  The City doesn't/won't/can't enforce its current regulations/codes/policies, let alone new ones.  It boils down to who complains, not the actual problem or code infraction.