HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2023 Sustainability Commission Packet
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
City Hall—Shared Vision Room, 3989 Central Ave NE
Tuesday, October 10, 2023
6:00 PM
AGENDA
ATTENDANCE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
Members of the public who wish to attend may do so in -person or via Microsoft Teams
www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting, Meeting ID 220 710 057 646 and passcode
9SW2ZH. For questions please call the Public Works Department at 763-706-3700.
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
2. Review of Minutes
COMMUNITY FORUM: At this time, individuals may address the Sustainability Commission about any
item not included on the regular agenda. All speakers need to state their name and connection to
Columbia Heights, and limit their comments to five (5) minutes. Those in attendance virtually should
send this information in the chat function to the moderator. The Commission will listen to brief
remarks, ask clarifying questions, and if needed, request staff to follow up or direct the matter to be
added to an upcoming agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
3. GreenStep Cities Profile Follow Up
4. Follow Up On Shared Email for Commission
5. Adopt a Tree Update
NEW BUSINESS
6. Review of Complete Streets Proposal
MOTION: Move to recommend that the City Council review the attached Complete Street
policy at an upcoming work session to consider adoption and implementation of Complete
Streets policies and design standards.
ADJOURNMENT
1
City of Columbia Heights AGENDA October 10, 2023
Sustainability Commission Page 2
Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for individuals with disabilities are available upon request when the request is
made at least 72 hours in advance. Please contact Administration at 763-706-3610 to make arrangements.
2
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
City Hall—Council Chambers, 3989 Central Ave NE
Tuesday, September 12, 2023
6:00 PM
DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ahmadvand at 6:00 p.m.
Members present: Commissioners Ahmadvand, Evenson, Finkelson, Groseth, Jensen Christen,
Johnson, Kurek, LaPlante, Leoni-Helbacka
Staff present: Sulmaan Khan, Interim City Engineer
Andrew Boucher, City Planner
Liam Genter, Urban Forestry Specialist
Sue Chapman, Administrative Assistant
Council Liaison: Connie Buesgens
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Johnson seconded by Groseth, to approve the minutes of August 8, 2023 as presented.
Motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Further Introductions and Background Information of Commissioners
2. GreenStep Cities Profile Follow-up
Khan asked commissioners if there is any interest in taking this to the next step and/or if there are any
other ideas that they would like to include in the profile. Staff feels the GreenStep Cities Profile would
be a good start for the Sustainability Commission. Boucher advised that currently the City of Columbia
Heights is on Step 2 of the program and there are some specific actions that we must take to get to Step
3. One requirement for Step 3 is a sustainable purchasing policy. This sets standards for energy star
compliant technology for appliances, paper with a certain percentage of recycled contents, WaterSense
which is an EPA program; there's other things that can also be added such as local purchasing
preferences. The best practices portion of the profile has examples of what other cities have done to
achieve the 1, 2 and 3 start levels.
Evenson advised she went through and highlighted the items that she thought would be the best fit. She
will blind copy the list to everyone for review. There may already be items that qualify for Step 3 that
the City has achieved, especially with the new energy efficient buildings. Boucher is reviewing what
we’ve done in the last five years to provide a status update. The yearly assessment is one of the items
that we put into the bylaws and the commissioners need to review this on a year-by-year basis.
3
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES September 12, 2023
Sustainability Commission Page 2
The Alatus development was brought up as an opportunity for the Sustainability Committee to bring
recommendations and ideas to the table, especially since the plans are still in the development stage.
Ahmadvand asked if the City has any information about EV charging and how effective it would be in
the community. Boucher advised he had a meeting with Xcel Energy and one of their partners, Energy
Group, and this is one of the things they do. They will provide EV ready toolkits to local governments
to get them going. The Partners in Energy Group is very valuable because they take on a lot of the
work and can administer a wide range of actions.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Draft Bylaws
Boucher stated the Youth Commission completed their bylaws last year so he’s looking at those for a
comparison. He’s going through the GreenStep actions to see what requires us to provide an update
with how things are functioning, identifying trends and giving recommendations on those trends. He
should have the draft bylaws available by the next meeting.
4. Introduction/Overview of Partners in Energy with Xcel Energy
This item was touched upon during the GreenStep Cities Profile discussion. Ahmadvand asked what the
target date is for them to come in. Boucher advised they accept rolling applications from communities
quarterly. He is thinking November or December is most likely for them to come in. They are very easy
to work with and willing to attend meetings, it depends on what we would like from them. He will obtain
contact information for the commissioners. There is also a lot of information on their website.
Xcel Energy provides a lot of funding for this program for costs that cities otherwise would have to incur.
Finkelson stated it doesn’t seem right that the industry group that built all the coal plants should create
the Sustainability Commission framework. Boucher advised Xcel Energy does work with several
environmental nonprofits, including the Center for Energy and the Environment and is supported by a
lot of environmental and nonprofit groups as well. This program would cover much of the leg work that
the commission would have to do or hiring a consultant to create these plans. Having seen them work
in the past, the community feedback they receive is very important to them. He will collect more
information so the commission can see what resources they provide and then have a further
conversation. There is no commitment to use this program.
Solar energy on city buildings was briefly discussed.
5. Sustainable Purchasing Policy
This item was also discussed during the GreenStep Cities Profile discussion. Boucher will get the
commissioners a draft copy of the sustainable purchasing policy.
6. Adopt a Boulevard Tree Program
Genter updated the commission on urban forestry activities, which are an important part of the
sustainability goals. One impact item is local action to deal with the effects of climate change, improve
air quality, etc. with trees. He explained how we plant trees in the city and that we plant bare root trees
which are very good for sustainability. Urban Forestry plants park and boulevard trees every year. Genter
started the Adopt a Tree boulevard tree program in 2021 , where every boulevard tree is paired with a
volunteer. This has improved watering complian ce and produced very good survival rates and growth
4
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES September 12, 2023
Sustainability Commission Page 3
for the boulevard trees. There were 100 volunteers in the first two years, which was our target number.
He will be planting 200 trees in October and currently has 60 volunteers. Urban Forestry can only plant
trees on city-owned property.
LaPlante stated there are no bus shelters at a lot of the stops on Central Avenue and no trees for shade
which makes it very hot while waiting for the bus in the summer.
Khan advised MnDOT is supposed to wrap up the study that’s being done for Central and University
Avenues by the end of this year. Metro Transit has just begun design of the F Line (BRT) that will run
along Central Avenue. To ensure the design of the F Line lines up with the vision for Central Avenue,
MnDOT and Metro Transit have been working to include some pre-design work as part of the F Line
Design contract that is in place right now. The design of that project will most likely be extending through
the end of next year. There are plans to provide more public engagements in the future to share the
results of the study, next steps, and gather feedback. Staff will definitely share via social media, etc.
once there are opportunities for public engagement. Once we get into the details for the reconstruction
of Central Avenue there will be a lot of opportunities for the Sustainability Commission to bring forward
and make recommendations to MnDOT. MnDOT is the owner of Central Avenue, but they have included
the local government agencies such as Columbia Heights, as well as other cities that Central Avenue runs
through. There is no timeline yet for the reconstruction. The City Council has agreed to hire a lobbyist
to help us gather monies for this once the plans are set up. We received a grant from MnDOT for 43rd
and 47th Avenues for sidewalks and lighting but this is on hold because of the F Line and MnDOT’s
planning, so we need to wait on that too.
Evenson asked if staff has talked to any of the business o wners about trees on Central Avenue. Khan
advised the study that’s been done so far has been more of a high-level study regarding impacts to
businesses such as taking away parking, widening the road for bike traffic, etc. There has not been any
dedicated one-on-one contact or meetings with business owners. Finkelson asked what the commission
could do to communicate with MnDOT. Can we submit letters regarding trees and greenspace and if so,
when should we start? It was also brought up that we may need to get funding for greenspace, MnDOT
may not cover the cost. Kurek asked if Columbia Heights could adopt specific language for storm water
stating that a certain amount of stormwater needs to be diverted into rain gardens on our side streets.
Boucher thinks there is language in the Comp Plan stating we would like to aspire to a complete streets
policy that addresses landscaping and stormwater. He feels this incorporates a lot of items that have
been discussed.
Commissioner Buesgens stated that Anoka County is planning to redo 40th Avenue and we may have
more control over that project. They are planning to come to the community next year to begin
discussions. Khan advised Anoka County is currently leading a study and has hired a consultant to look
at improving safety along 40th Avenue. Once the study is completed, in March or April, they will bring a
more formal proposal as far as the turnback to the City. There are improvements that need to be made
on 40th Avenue and the study should really help us understand wh ich ones will benefit 40th Avenue. As
far as the turnback, Anoka County could reconstruct 40th Avenue and say Columbia Heights this is now
your roadway, or they could say this is the study that was done, this is an estimate of the work, and then
provide a check for that amount. There are plans for public engagement, but the study just started so
they’re currently in the process of looking at the crash data and collecting statistics.
5
Item 2.
City of Columbia Heights DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES September 12, 2023
Sustainability Commission Page 4
As there seems to be a lot of interest in the complete streets policy, Boucher suggested everyone look
at Best Practice 11 in the GreenStep Best Practices Profile.
7. HeightsNEXT Central Avenue Cleanup
HeightsNext is organizing the Central Avenue cleanup on October 7. It begins at 9 a.m. and they’re
looking for volunteers for sign-in tables, a welcome speaker, someone to pick up bulky items at the end
of the cleanup and take them to the dumpster behind the Public Works building, and a photographer. If
anyone is interested please get in touch with Councilmember Buesgens. LaPlante volunteered to set up
a table for the Sustainability Commission and the trees at the cleanup.
Also, Councilmember Buesgens stated the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization has a
citizen advisory committee. Currently we do not have anyone from Columbia Heights on that
committee. The committee meets two or three times a year. They advise on small projects that people
have applied for such as feasibility studies for water drainage for business, habitat, etc. If anyone is
interested, please see her after the meeting. We really should have someone from Columbia Heights on
that committee.
8. Other
Posting a general email on the website was brought up and if there is a way for an email to come in so
the entire commission can see it. Khan will check into this. Currently only his contact info is on the
website.
Johnson asked for an update on the comp plan for the next meeting. Khan and Boucher will get that
information.
Commissioners agreed to draft a letter to MnDOT regarding the plans for Central Avenue for review at
the next meeting. Boucher advised that Best Practice 11 would help with writing this letter. Khan
suggested commission members email him with their priorities as bullet points and he will compile
them into one document.
Khan advised members that they can email him with any agenda items for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Evenson, seconded by Ahmadvand to adjourn the meeting at 7:34 p.m. Motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Chapman
Administrative Assistant
6
Item 2.
ITEM: Review of Complete Streets Proposal
DEPARTMENT: Community Development BY/DATE: Andrew Boucher, City Planner
10/5/2023
CORE CITY STRATEGIES: (please indicate areas that apply by adding an “X” in front of the selected text below)
X Healthy and Safe Community
X Equitable, Diverse, Inclusive, and Friendly
_Trusted and Engaged Leadership
_Thriving and Vibrant Destination Community
X Strong Infrastructure and Public Services
X Sustainable
BACKGROUND
In the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City of Columbia Heights defines Complete Streets as roadways that
accommodate all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and transit) regardless of age and ability. The City has
not established design guidelines related to Complete Streets; however the Transportation Plan’s goals and
policies embrace several elements of Complete Streets (safety for pedestrians and bicyclists) and MnDOT’s has
adopted a Complete Streets Policy committing to assessing opportunities for incorporating complete street
design principles in all MnDOT’s Complete Streets Policy can serve as a resource to the City for incorporating
complete street design standards into City projects. An explicit Complete Streets Policy is also a requirement for
Step 3 progression in the MN GreenStep Cities program.
GreenStep Cities provides implementation tools and resources for Complete Streets, Living Streets, and Street
Design such as Local Government Complete Streets Toolkit from MN Complete Streets Coalition and a
Complete Streets Policy Framework created by Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets
Coalition to assist in developing ordinances and policies. There are also examples of cities in Minnesota who
have met the highest star rating for their Complete Streets Policies and served as examples to follow w hen
crafting Columbia Heights’ Complete Streets policies. The cities examined including Arlington, Edina, Lakeville,
and Maplewood, but also reviewed the policies of Fridley, Northfield, and South St. Paul as other three -star
examples.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Sustainability Commission give a positive recommendation to the City Council to
review the proposed Complete Streets policy and design standards at the next available work session and
consider implementation and adoption should the policy serve the public interest and satisfy the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA SECTION NEW BUSINESS
MEETING DATE OCTOBER 10, 2023
7
Item 6.
City of Columbia Heights - Council Letter Page 2
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
MOTION: Move to recommend that the City Council review the attached Complete Street policy at an
upcoming work session to consider adoption and implementation of Complete Streets policies and design
standards.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Complete Streets Ordinance
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6 – Transportation Maps
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 – Parks and Trails
Complete Streets Policy Framework
Best Practice Action 11.1 – Arlington
Best Practice Action 11.1 – Edina
Best Practice Action 11.1 – Lakeville
8
Item 6.
Complete Streets
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY DEFINING A PROCESS TO ENSURE
FUTURE STREET AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, GIVE AMPLE CONSIDERATION TO ALL FUTURE
USERS AND INCORPORATE FEATURES AS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE CITY’S VISION OF COMPLETE
STREETS
WHEREAS, Complete Streets as defined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan means roadways planned,
designed, and constructed to provide appropriate access to all users and promotes safe and efficient
movement of people and goods, whether by car, truck, transit, assistive device, foot, or bicycle; and,
WHEREAS, Complete Streets support economic growth and community stability by providing accessible
and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation, and retail destinations by improving
pedestrian and vehicular environments; and,
WHEREAS, increasing walking and bicycling offers improved health benefits for community members and
makes Columbia Heights a more livable community; and,
WHEREAS, Complete Streets enhance safe walking and bicycling options for school-age children, in
recognition of the Safe Routes to Schools program; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights recognizes the importance of street infrastructure and
modifications such as sidewalks, crosswalks, shared-use paths, bicycle lanes, signage, and accessible curb
ramps that enable safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for all users.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. PURPOSE
This policy defines a process to ensure future street and transportation projects, give ample
consideration to all future users and incorporate features as necessary to fulfill the City’s vision of
Complete Streets. The City views each street and transportation project as unique. This means design
features will likely differ from street to street, yet each street may still be considered “complete’.
SECTION II. COMPLETE STREET POLICY
This policy consists of narrative standards and a map illustrating focus corridors. The following guidelines
should be followed to ensure that complete streets elements are incorporated into all transportation
improvement projects (except as exempted herein):
1. Complete Streets elements should be incorporated into all public transportation projects, Capital
Improvement Plan, or any other existing and future supporting plans.
2. At the start of any transportation project, the following factors shall be considered:
Current and anticipated land uses along the corridor as well as nearby designations
(parks, library, post office, shopping centers, etc.)
Anticipated uses and their abilities anticipated to frequent the corridor based on the
identified land uses, nearby destinations, and surrounding development.
Existing and anticipated transportation infrastructure that will interact with the subject
corridor.
9
Item 6.
Complete Streets
Stated public desires for specific transportation infrastructure in specified areas; such as
public facilities, transit, regional transportation network, and commercial areas.
General and specific guidance for the corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Identifying the presence of gaps or barriers to active transportation and connectivity
with existing street networks and seek out opportunities to enhance connectivity for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.
3. Complete Streets elements that potentially address the agreed upon factors should be identified
at the start of a project.
Require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that
connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the
development.
Include consideration of the logical termini by mode when designing a bike lane or
sidewalk.
4. Within the City of Columbia Heights, there is no singular design prescription for Complete
Streets; each design is unique and responds to its neighborhood area or overall community
context. A complete street may include but is not limited to one or more of the following
elements:
Designated walking facilities, including sidewalks, trails, and adequate roadway
shoulders if other facilities are not feasible;
Safe crossing facilities, including marked crosswalks and curb ramps;
Signs, signals, and pavement markings that improve pedestrian visibility, safety and
convenience;
American with Disabilities Act compliant accessibility improvements, including curb
ramps, detectable warnings and audible signals;
Improvements to the quality of the pedestrian environment, including street trees,
boulevard landscaping, plater stirps, street and sidewalk lighting, street furniture and
other pedestrian amenities;
On-street bicycle facilities
Off-street bicycle facilities, including shared-use paths and bicycle trails;
Bicycle parking/storage facilities
Preservation of on-street parking
Safe and effective lighting
Adequate drainage facilities.
5. All identified elements may not be warranted based on the importance and limitations of the
corridor but will include the following guidelines to direct the planning, funding, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths, and
trails while allowing for context-sensitive designs.
Keep street pavements widths to the minimum necessary.
Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-
use pathways on all arterial and collector streets and on local connector streets as
determined by context. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public
school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be
determined by context.
10
Item 6.
Complete Streets
Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossing. These may be at intersections
designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and
appropriate.
Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes.
Allocate right-of-way for boulevards.
Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living
Streets principles.
Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees,
rain gardens, and other features to improve air and water quality.
6. The ideal roadway design may not always be feasible due to either a physical constraint such as
lack of right-of-way or an economic constraint such as unsustainable cost of improvement.
Factors to consider in making this judgment may include but are not limited to:
Whether or not the corridor is within an identified area for complete streets as
illustrated on the attached map;
Community desires;
Available and planned right-of-way;
Existing and future use context;
Existing improvements;
The number and types of users;
Existing and proposed utilities;
Parking needs
Available budget
7. When balancing competing interests, design decisions should favor the following:
Transportation infrastructure that provides safe access for as many appropriate modes
of transportation as possible;
Transportation design that fits within the corridor’s environmental context in that it
preserves the scenic, historic, aesthetic, community, and environmental conditions of
the location.
SECTION III. COMPLETE STREETS FOCUS CORRIDORS
The maps accompanying this narrative is intended to illustrate Complete Street focus areas. The
following suggestions are provided for consideration as the Columbia Heights Complete Streets policy is
administered:
Downtown: Consider all ages and abilities. Design to accommodate delivery trucks and
passenger autos at low speeds. Favor the pedestrian experience. Sidewalks should be
maintained throughout the Downtown adjacent to streets. Pedestrian enhancements
are desired for boulevard areas. Greenspace, pocket parks, and decorative lighting will
enhance the pedestrian experience. Bike racks are necessary to allow bicyclists to park
and walk through Downtown.
Future expansion: Implement Complete Streets policy as development occurs. Consider
all ages and abilities. Consider truck routes, passenger auto routes, sidewalks/trails,
overhead street lighting, and boulevard trees when reviewing street designs.
11
Item 6.
Complete Streets
Industrial: Consider all ages and abilities. Design to accommodate heavy trucks and
delivery traffic. Provide for employees arriving/departing by various means including on
foot, by bicycle, and other modes. Favor lighting for safety and security purposes.
Residential: Consider all ages and abilities. Implement Complete Streets policy as
street/utility reconstruction and/or sidewalk maintenance/construction plan is
implemented. Truck traffic should be accommodated in designated truck routes.
Vehicular traffic at slower speeds should be anticipated. Pedestrian accommodation
should be considered on sidewalks adjacent to one or both sides of the street. Bikes may
be accommodated in on-street lanes adjacent to collector streets. Lighting is anticipated
overhead, typical street style. Boulevard trees incrementally spaced are recommended.
SECTION IV. BENCHMARKS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The City will monitor and measure its performance relative to this policy, demonstrating success will
include:
Every street and neighborhood is a place where children, seniors, and disabled people can
cross all streets safely and comfortably.
No unfiltered street water flows into local waterways and storm water volume is reduced;
Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department.
Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests.
Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys and post-project
surveys.
Number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after
the project.
Speed statistics of vehicles on local streets.
Improving stormwater quality through encouragement and establishment of a rain garden
program, reducing the impervious footprint, and meeting the 1” infiltration standard.
Creating boulevard tree standards that provide benefits such as uptake and filtration of
runoff, providing shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants.
SECTION V. EXEMPTIONS
Complete Street elements shall be considered and included in street construction, reconstruction,
repaving and rehabilitation projects unless:
A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in
serviceable condition such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair,
or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on temporary detour or haul
routes;
It is determined there is insufficient space to safely accommodate new facilities or such
improvements create or do not address relatively high safety risks;
Excessive and disproportionate cost of establishing a specific enhancement as part of a
project; and/or
Construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse
environmental impacts to streams, flood plains, remnants of native vegetation, wetlands,
12
Item 6.
Complete Streets
steep slopes or other critical areas, or due to impacts on neighboring land uses (including
impact from right-of-way acquisition).
Whereas exemptions occur, the City will seek alternative options as a means to accommodate users with
whom the City was unable to initially accommodate.
13
Item 6.
Complete Streets
14
Item 6.
Complete Streets
15
Item 6.
Complete Streets
16
Item 6.
Complete Streets
17
Item 6.
Complete Streets
18
Item 6.
Complete Streets
19
Item 6.
Complete Streets
20
Item 6.
Complete Streets
21
Item 6.
Complete Streets
22
Item 6.
The Complete Streets
Policy Framework
23
Item 6.
2COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Writing a strong Complete Streets policy
Once someone gets familiar with the basic concept of Complete
Streets—streets designed and maintained to serve the needs of
everyone—the next step is understanding the role that a policy plays
in getting there. So what exactly goes into an effective and strong
Complete Streets policy? There are 10 discrete elements identified by
the National Complete Streets Coalition.
If you or your community is aiming to begin the hard but vital work of
passing a policy, this short guide is the best place to start. Each of the
10 elements are covered in detail on the following pages, including
the scoring details used to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a
Complete Streets policy. (New to Complete Streets? For more of the
basics on the concept and the Coalition, please visit completestreets.org)
A brief history of the Complete Streets policy framework
Having coined the term “Complete
Streets” in the early 2000s, the nascent
National Complete Streets Coalition
succeeded in popularizing a fresh
approach to street design that prioritizes making streets safe for people
of all ages and abilities, however they get around. But by the mid-2010s,
as pedestrian fatalities increased to historic levels, the Coalition realized
that many of the policies being passed were failing to have the desired
effect of making streets safer. Most alarmingly, the crisis of people being
struck and injured or killed while walking or biking was not felt evenly—
people of color and people in lower-income areas were being killed
disproportionately.
There were two primary reasons that the policies weren’t having
the fullest effect: First, the early versions of these policies lacked
accountability measures to ensure that the Complete Streets policies
were fully put into practice. Second, most policies failed to specify and
require the incredibly difficult work of institutionalizing the approach,
such as training agency staff, traffic engineers, and project managers.
It’s worth noting that Complete Streets represents a massive paradigm
shift from a status quo that prioritizes moving vehicles quickly at almost
any cost. And these limitations in the early policies also came against
a backdrop of the federal approach to street design that continued to
prioritize speed above safety. This is why, in addition to our primary role
encouraging strong local, state, or federal Complete Streets policies,
as part of a broader team within Smart Growth America, we work
1. Establishes commitment and vision
2. Prioritizes underinvested and underserved communities
3. Applies to all projects and phases
4. Allows only clear exceptions
5. Mandates coordination
6. Adopts excellent design guidance
7. Requires proactive land-use planning
8. Measures progress
9. Sets criteria for choosing projects
10. Creates a plan for implementation
24
Item 6.
3COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
more expansively on improving safety by pressing for changes to the
transportation design guides, models, and measures that contribute to
producing streets that are dangerous by design.
While the Coalition succeeded in putting this vital, brand new concept
on the map, fostering a powerful movement from coast to coast, and
encouraging local and state governments to reconsider their approaches
to street design, it was also time to re-evaluate what should go into a
strong Complete Streets policy.
So in 2018, the Coalition produced an improved framework for
Complete Streets policies that requires binding language and more
accountability to ensure that any policy produces tangible changes and
prioritizes the needs of underinvested and underserved communities.
The Complete Streets Policy Framework you read here, produced in
2023, represents the current best practices for creating a strong policy
that can be implemented at any level of governance. It’s the go-to policy
framework to guide any community who wants to develop their own
policies.
The full content of this document is also available in a series of sharable,
individual posts online: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/10-elements-
of-complete-streets/
The Best Complete Streets Policies, issued regularly by the
National Complete Streets Coalition, scores all policies using
this 10-element framework to evaluate and uplift the best
Complete Streets policies from across the country which can
serve as a model for other communities.
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/best-complete-streets
25
Item 6.
26
Item 6.
5COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
What does this element look like in practice?
In practical terms, a commitment and vision means that the policy uses
clear, binding, and enforceable language like “shall” or “must” in the
legislative text itself, rather than words like “may” or “considers.”
In the earliest years of this movement, a large share of the Complete
Streets policies adopted across the country were non-binding
resolutions. This was not good enough for a community that truly
wanted to build Complete Streets. Policies that are binding and not just
“optional” are proven to make a tangible difference in what gets built,
how, and where.
The policy must clearly acknowledge the need for building a complete,
connected, comprehensive transportation network and explicitly state
the tangible benefits of ensuring all people can comfortably travel to and
from their destinations safely, in a reasonable amount of time, without
breaking the bank.
Most notably, and improving upon the standards that policies were
held to a decade ago, equity—which includes the consideration of race,
income, and physical ability—should be a core motivation for pursuing a
Complete Streets policy.
The policies that receive the maximum point value from this area also
mention several transportation modes and specifically call out biking
and walking. Why those modes specifically? Because a Complete
Streets policy is both about prioritizing the most vulnerable users of the
transportation system (people walking, rolling, and biking), and fostering
Element #1: A strong Complete Streets policy establishes
commitment and a vision
How and why does a community want to complete its streets? Clear
answers to that question—an unmistakable and binding statement of
intent—are the vital first element for creating a complete, connected
network of streets that considers the needs of all users.
Every policy is an opportunity for a jurisdiction to make its intentions and
motivations clear to the public as they craft, develop, and prioritize their
rationale for adopting a Complete Streets policy. No two communities
are identical, and no two Complete Streets policies should be exactly the
same either.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Every successful effort to do something markedly different—whether
that’s a new approach to street design or designing a longer-lasting light
bulb—starts with the “why” and the “how.” Starting a policy with a clear
statement of intent and commitment to Complete Streets accomplishes
several vital purposes: It makes the intentions crystal clear to a public
who can provide accountability. It shapes or directs the community’s
approach to its transportation practices, policies, and decision-making
processes. And it provides a necessary foundation for the rest of the
policy.
Element #1 27
Item 6.
6COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• 3 points: The policy is clear in intent, stating firmly the
jurisdiction’s commitment to a Complete Streets approach, using
“shall” or “must” language. This needs to be in the body of the
legislation, not the “whereas” statement.
• (1 point) – The policy states the jurisdiction “may” or
“considers” Complete Streets in their transportation planning
and decision-making processes.
• (0 points) – The policy language is indirect with regard to
their intent to apply a Complete Streets approach, using
language such as “consider Complete Streets principles or
elements.”
• 2 points: mentions the need to create a complete, connected,
network.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: specifies at least one motivation or benefit of pursuing
Complete Streets.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 1 point: specifies equity as an additional motivation or benefit of
pursuing Complete Streets.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 4 points: specifies modes, with a base of four modes, two of which
must be biking and walking.
• (0 points) Policy mentions fewer than four modes and/or
omits biking or walking.
a paradigm shift away from prioritizing speedy car travel, the status quo
of transportation planning for the last 60-plus years.
Complete Streets policies also work best when the policy reflects a
community’s own unique vision and needs. While each policy calls
for a commitment to diverse users and abilities, communities should
also articulate their own particular visions of economic, equitable,
sustainable, healthy, safe, and livable futures. The process of writing and
adopting a Complete Streets policy provides a valuable opportunity for
the community to come together and articulate their deeply held values
and a shared vision, building a foundation of support to advocate for
the longer-term changes that a strong policy requires. By setting out a
clear vision and committing to realizing it, communities can create better
policies that reach their most pressing, unique needs—and their most
vulnerable populations.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 12 out of 100 possible points. This
element is the third most valuable of the 10 in part because it provides a
foundation for the other elements and establishes the clear and binding
commitment by the jurisdiction to institutionalize a Complete Streets
approach. Without binding language, the other elements lose their
potential value.
Element #1 28
Item 6.
29
Item 6.
8COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
while Black communities continue to suffer from underinvestment.
At the national level, we see certain populations disproportionately
represented in traffic fatalities—people of color, particularly Black
and Native Americans; older adults; and people walking in low-income
neighborhoods are struck and killed at much higher rates than other
populations.
All people should have options for getting around that are safe,
convenient, reliable, affordable, accessible, and timely regardless of
race, ethnicity, religion, income, gender identity, immigration status, age,
ability, languages spoken, or level of access to a personal vehicle. This
requires focusing attention on the communities and places that have not
been appropriately or adequately invested in.
Element #2: A strong Complete Streets policy prioritizes
underinvested and underserved communities
Building a complete and connected transportation network requires
investing in places and people that have not received investment.
The strongest Complete Streets policies will specifically prioritize
underinvested and underserved communities based on the
jurisdiction’s composition and objectives.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
A core goal of the Complete Streets approach is to create a complete and
connected transportation network. And a network is only as strong as
its weakest points—its gaps. In order to achieve a connected network, a
jurisdiction needs to allocate its often-limited resources most efficiently
and equitably: by first focusing on these gaps. The gaps are likely to be
places that have been systematically under-invested in because the
people living there were discriminated against, ignored, or deprioritized.
The strongest Complete Streets policies will therefore first fund and
address gaps in their network.
The U.S.’s history of systemic discrimination, oppression, and exclusion,
especially based on race, income, and ability, is part of the transportation
context and cannot be ignored. For example, inadequate transportation
safety investments in predominantly Black communities stem from
government-sanctioned segregation and redlining practices. This
has resulted in white neighborhoods receiving disproportionately
larger benefits of safe, convenient, reliable, affordable infrastructure,
From Dangerous by Design. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
Element #2 30
Item 6.
9COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
if you aren’t clear on who those communities are, those reading your
policies will come to their own conclusion on who they think should be
included within that group. It’s important to be specific and qualitatively
or quantitatively define which groups are included in the definition of
underinvested and underserved communities. Below are some examples
of qualitative and quantitative definitions.
• Qualitative: older adults, people with disabilities, specific
neighborhoods with historic disinvestment, low-income
neighborhoods
• Quantitative: census tract(s) with X% of people below the poverty
line, X% of individuals with a disability, X% of households without
access to a vehicle
In order to remedy inequities, this policy element requires the
jurisdiction to equitably invest in its transportation network by ensuring
underinvested and underserved communities are considered above and
beyond others.
This policy element holds jurisdictions accountable for including equity
in their plans based on the composition and objectives of the community.
The communities that are disproportionately impacted by transportation
policies and practices will vary depending on the context of the
jurisdiction.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The jurisdictions with the strongest Complete Streets policies will do
two things: 1) define their priority groups (the communities or areas
that have been underinvested and underserved), and 2) prioritize those
communities.
Defining who you consider your underinvested and underserved
communities is crucial to a strong policy. For example, It’s one thing to
say that you are going to prioritize certain areas or communities, but
From Dangerous by Design. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
Element #2 31
Item 6.
10COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 9 out of 100 possible points.
• 4 points: The policy establishes an accountable, measurable
definition for priority groups or places. This definition may be
quantitative (e.g. neighborhoods with X% of the population without
access to a vehicle or where the median income is below a certain
threshold) or qualitative (e.g. naming specific neighborhoods).
• (0 points) No mention.
• 5 points: The policy language requires the jurisdiction to
“prioritize” underinvested and underserved communities. This
could include neighborhoods with insufficient infrastructure
or neighborhoods with a concentration of people who are
disproportionately represented in traffic fatalities.
• (3 points) Policy states its intent to “benefit” people in the
underinvested and underserved communities, as relevant to
the jurisdiction.
• (1 point) Policy mentions or considers any of the
neighborhoods or users above.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #2 32
Item 6.
33
Item 6.
12COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
construction, operation, and maintenance. Instead of, for example,
applying Complete Streets elements after a project’s purpose has
already been scoped or defined, such as tacking on some features late in
the design process.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The policy element is very clear that every transportation project—
including every maintenance operation—accounts for the needs of all
modes of transportation and users of the road network.
Instead of applying only to certain projects or a narrowly defined
set of projects, the strongest Complete Streets policy requires
the consideration of all users for all new, retrofit/reconstruction,
maintenance, and ongoing projects. (A weaker policy merely considers
these projects as opportunities for applying these principles.) This
might mean integrating a Complete Streets approach into existing
maintenance schedules and using basic repaving work to improve the
overall network, rather than just waiting on large, expensive, capital
projects. While the requirement to consider all users does not mean all
modes will be equally accommodated in the final project, it does mean
that motor vehicles are not presumed as the primary mode and it will
demonstrate a foundational culture shift in the department or agency.
Whether a repaving or more expansive construction project, this work
can also be disruptive to people using the street. Under the typical status
quo, the needs of people outside of cars are generally not carefully
considered or accounted for when the right-of-way gets ripped up or
temporarily blocked. That’s why this element also specifies the need
Element #3: A strong Complete Streets policy applies to all
transportation projects, in every phase
To which projects or streets should a Complete Streets policy apply?
If the policy is a strong one, then it dictates a holistic approach to
every transportation project, in every place, in every phase of work.
This means the application of a policy will also look different based
on context.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
There are two big reasons that our policy framework includes this third
element requiring that any policy applies to all projects and phases.
First, Complete Streets is not just a set of projects, it’s a holistic
approach and process to the transportation system, which by
definition, applies to all kinds of projects. Getting to Complete Streets
requires more than just isolated projects here and there. It requires
building a complete network of streets that are safe for all users. Doing
this demands a new paradigm to the entire transportation system, so a
strong policy will be applied to every project, not just the “convenient”
ones, for example. (Exceptions may sometimes exist, but they are limited.
Read more in element #4.)
Second, Complete Streets are never just an add-on component or
a design feature tacked on at the end of the same old conventional
road-building project. The strongest, most effective policies apply to
every phase of any project’s development, including planning, design,
Element #3 34
Item 6.
13COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
For state/MPO policies:
• 4 points: Policy requires all new construction and reconstruction/
retrofit projects receiving state or federal funding to account for
the needs of all modes of transportation and all users of the road
network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 4 points: Policy requires all maintenance projects and ongoing
operations, such as resurfacing, repaving, restriping, rehabilitation,
or other types of changes to the transportation system receiving
state or federal funding, to account for the needs of all modes of
transportation and all users of the road network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
For all policies:
• 2 points: Policy specifies the need to provide accommodations for
all modes of transportation to continue to use the road safely and
efficiently during any construction or repair work that infringes on
the right of way and/or sidewalk.
to provide safe and routine accommodations during any construction
or repair work that infringes on the right of way and/or sidewalk. E.g, a
city’s Complete Streets policy would codify a requirement that when
a sidewalk is closed for adjacent construction, the property owner/
developer must provide a sidewalk that’s comparable to the one being
temporarily removed. In an urban area that might mean a sheltered
sidewalk to protect people from nearby construction. In a less dense
suburban or rural area, that might just mean an adjacent sidewalk of the
same width and quality.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth 10 out of 100 possible points.
For municipality/county policies:
• 4 points: Policy requires all new construction and reconstruction/
retrofit projects to account for the needs of all modes of
transportation and all users of the road network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 4 points: Policy requires all maintenance projects and ongoing
operations, such as resurfacing, repaving, restriping, rehabilitation,
or other types of changes to the transportation system to account
for the needs of all modes of transportation and all users of the
road network.
• (1 point) Policy considers or mentions these projects as
opportunities to apply this policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #3 35
Item 6.
36
Item 6.
15COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The jurisdictions with the strongest Complete Streets policies 1) clearly
specify a list of exceptions (ones that don’t stray from the National
Complete Streets Coalition’s approved list of exceptions,) 2) require that
any proposed exceptions are made publicly available prior to approval,
and 3) designate someone responsible for reviewing and approving
exceptions.
Below is the list of the Coalition’s approved exceptions. The Coalition
considers these “approved exceptions” because they have limited
potential to weaken the intention of the policy. These exceptions follow
the Federal Highway Administration’s guidance on accommodating
bicycle and pedestrian travel and/or identified best practices frequently
used in existing Complete Streets policies:
Element #4: A strong Complete Streets policy allows only
clear exceptions
Complete Streets policies are comprehensive and apply to all streets
and in all phases of all projects, but there are certain circumstances
where exceptions can—and should—be made. But those exceptions
must be narrowly and clearly defined, as well as require public notice
prior to approval by a high-level official.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Complete Streets policies should be comprehensive and apply to all
transportation projects in a community, but in certain circumstances,
exceptions can—and should—be made. This might seem counterintuitive,
especially considering that the strongest Complete Streets policies apply
to all projects and all phases (element #3.) But including specific, clear,
and limited exceptions actually increases the strength of your policy
because it prevents discretionary exceptions in the future, helping to
ensure equitable implementation.
By having a clear and specific list of exceptions in the policy, everyone—
transportation staff, policymakers, powerful community members—is
limited to that list only. This means no backroom dealings. It means that
no one has the discretionary power to exclude certain projects from
the applicability of the Complete Streets policy. And residents can hold
agency staff and policymakers accountable for adhering to the clearly
defined exceptions. In other words, the Complete Streets policy will
apply except in the very specific situations listed in the policy.
“The only way exceptions do not turn into a big black hole
is by bringing a lot of sunlight to it. So exceptions are used
when necessary—not just to bypass the policy. But if you
don’t make it clear what you’re trying to do and involve
the public in the decision then the exception can be a
process by which the intent of your policy is completely
undermined.”
– Beth Osborne, Vice President of Transportation at Smart
Growth America.
Element #4 37
Item 6.
16COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• It also includes specifying who will be responsible for granting
approved exceptions. Ideally, this individual is a part of senior
management.
In the strongest policies, everyone knows what the exceptions are, how
they are reviewed and approved, who is responsible for reviewing and
approving them, and a clear path for the public or other agencies to offer
comments—improving transparency and accountability.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 8 out of 100 possible.
• 4 points: Policy includes one or more of the above exceptions—and
no others.
• (2 points) Policy includes any other exceptions, including
those that weaken the intent of the Complete Streets policy.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy states who is responsible for approving exceptions.
• 2 points: Policy requires public notice prior to granting an
exception in some form. This could entail a public meeting or an
online posting with opportunity for comment.
• Accommodation is not necessary on corridors where specific
users are prohibited, such as interstate freeways or pedestrian
malls. Exclusion of certain users on particular corridors should not
exempt projects from accommodating other permitted users.
• Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need
or probable use.
• A documented absence of current and future need.
• Emergency repairs such as a water main leak that require an
immediate, rapid response; however, temporary accommodations
for all modes should still be made. Depending on the severity of the
repairs, opportunities to improve multimodal access should still be
considered where possible.
• Transit accommodations are not required where there is no
existing or planned transit service.
• Routine maintenance of the transportation network that does
not change the roadway geometry or operations, such as mowing,
sweeping, and spot repair.
• Where a reasonable and equivalent project along the same
corridor is already programmed to provide facilities exempted
from the project at hand.
In addition to clearly defining appropriate exceptions, the policy must
outline a clear process for reviewing and approving them, providing
clarity to the staff charged with implementing the policy.
• This includes making the proposed exceptions publicly available
prior to their review and potential approval. This could mean
posting proposed exceptions to a public website that allows
comments or including space for discussion on proposed
exceptions during public meetings.
Element #4 38
Item 6.
39
Item 6.
18COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Element #5: A strong Complete Streets policy requires
coordination between jurisdictions, agencies, and
departments
Any number of agencies—city, county, metro region, or state—may
be responsible for the streets and sidewalks, often with overlapping
authority. This is why the strongest Complete Streets policies clearly
define who is responsible, what level of coordination is required, and
even when or how outside parties must comply.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
While some streets have clear ownership by a single agency, it’s rarely
that straightforward. For example, the state manages a street that’s
intersected by city streets. What happens when new crosswalks are
planned? Or you have a metro planning organization that doles out
federal money to the city that actually owns and maintains the streets.
Or a private developer who controls a portion of the sidewalk (or even
a street) through a new development surrounded by other city-owned
streets.
These overlapping authorities can make it difficult to create a true
network of Complete Streets rather than just a patchwork. But a strong
policy will clearly define and regulate coordination and cooperation to
ensure a Complete Streets approach is used on every project, especially
when those projects cross or implicate multiple jurisdictions or agencies.
As an example, San Jose’s (CA) policy says they will “work in coordination
with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize
opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation.”
What does this element look like in practical terms?
There are really just two main components in the scoring for this
element, depending on whether or not the policy is intensely local
(city, county) or less so (state, metro), since a city has limited ability
to dictate terms to their state DOT, though they can still establish
their own commitment to coordination. At the local level, the focus
is requiring private developers to comply with the Complete Streets
policy to prevent gaps in the broader network of Complete Streets. For
instance, in order for private developers to move forward with a zoning
or building permit, they should also be required to address how they
will incorporate Complete Streets into the project being reviewed, if
applicable.
At the state and metro level, it’s largely about incentives within the
policy to steer a greater share of that funding to projects that account
for the needs of all modes and users. States (and metro areas to a lesser
degree) control the lion’s share of all federal transportation funding. And
so a state- or metro-level policy gets all five points if the policy makes
it clear that projects that account for the needs of all modes and users
will be prioritized for funding. (Often this happens by receiving extra
weight in the scoring process to decide which projects are included in
the state- or metro-level transportation plan. At the metro level, this is
the Transportation Improvement Plan, which is a list of projects that are
actually in the pipeline to receive funds and get built.)
Element #5 40
Item 6.
19COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
The second component for all policies is a requirement for agencies
within a jurisdiction to coordinate and bring their other plans into
alignment with the vision for building Complete Streets, like requiring
a city’s zoning or housing department to coordinate with the
transportation department. Every transportation problem is also a
land-use issue, and vice versa, so requiring this coordination is vital for
ensuring that the benefits of having safe streets for walking or biking are
maximized by the land-use decisions on or near those streets.
Policy scoring details
The best Complete Streets policies clearly define the role and
responsibility of each particular agency and require, rather than just
encourage, cooperation and coordination. Using the right tool at the
right scale ensures that agencies and jurisdictions use their resources
effectively, minimizes opportunities for variances from the policy, and
creates a framework for better decision-making amongst everybody
involved. Doing this well also builds trust and the kinds of relationships
that are essential to building a complete network.
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 8 out of 100 possible points.
For municipality/county policies:
• 5 points: The policy requires private development projects to
comply.
• (2 points) The policy mentions or encourages private
development projects to follow a Complete Streets approach.
• (0 points) No mention.
For state/MPO policies:
• 5 points: The policy clearly notes that projects that address
how they will account for the needs of all modes and users are
prioritized or awarded extra weight for funding and/or inclusion in
Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs).
• (2 points) A state’s or MPO’s policy mentions or encourages
projects receiving money passing through the agency to
account for the needs of all modes and users.
• (0 points) No mention.
For all policies:
• 3 points: The policy specifies a requirement for interagency
coordination between various agencies such as public health,
housing, planning, engineering, transportation, public works, city
council, and/or mayor or executive office.
• (1 point) Policy mentions or encourages interagency
coordination.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #5 41
Item 6.
42
Item 6.
21COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Transportation Officials (NACTO). State and local agencies may also
choose to create their own guidance, and in those instances they often
will adapt existing guidance.
But not all guides are created equally, and some jurisdictions still rely
on design guides that use highway engineering principles and prioritize
vehicle throughput over all other uses of the street. For example,
encouraging wider lanes and fewer crossings, in order to move vehicles
more efficiently, is often done at the expense of safety and mobility
for anyone not in a vehicle. This kind of guidance is at odds with the
Complete Streets approach.
The National Complete Streets Coalition believes that the strongest
Complete Streets policies need to adopt specific, best state-of-the-
practice design guidance and/or require the update of internal design
policies and guides. In order to effectively design a Complete Streets
street network, engineers need design guidance that includes both
specific standards and explicit flexibility to accommodate all users and
modes, and prioritize safety for vulnerable roadway users.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
When it comes to design guidance, the jurisdictions with the strongest
Complete Streets policy will do two things: 1) direct the adoption of
specific, best state-of-the-practice design guidance and/or outline
which internal design guidance it plans to revise or develop and 2) set a
timeline for implementing the guidance.
Element #6: A strong Complete Streets policy adopts
excellent design guidance
What facilitates the transition from a policy into tangible street
designs? To bring a Complete Streets policy to life, engineers need
to know how to design these streets in very clear, concrete terms.
The best Complete Streets policies will adopt excellent street
design guidance that directs and supports practitioners to create an
accessible and complete network of streets.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Adopting excellent design guidance equips your jurisdiction’s engineers
with the practical information they need to design streets that reflect
the vision of your Complete Streets policy. Design guidance bridges
Complete Streets from policy to pavement.
But first, what is a design guide? Design guides are resources that help
engineers determine the appropriate dimensions and characteristics
of roadways. For example, they help engineers navigate questions
around lane widths, speed limits, turning radii, crossing locations and
markings, signal timings, traffic controls, and much more. Design guides
are used in all phases of transportation projects from new construction
and reconstruction to operations and maintenance. Typically, design
guides are issued by national organizations and agencies like the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the National Association of City
Element #6 43
Item 6.
22COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
ran into issues with their state prohibiting certain design guidelines.
However, thanks to a rule change in the 2021 infrastructure law, for
federally funded projects, localities can use safer street design guidelines
approved by the FHWA (such as those from NACTO), even if their state
has prohibited them from doing so.
Some examples of what the Coalition considers best, state-of-the-
practice design guidance are below. Note: This is not a comprehensive
list of all the state-of-the-practice design guides, and also reflect what was
available in April 2023. Refer to the online version of the policy framework for
any available up-to-date information: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/10-
elements-of-complete-streets/
• Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA)
• Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA)
• Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and
Reducing Conflicts (FHWA)
• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian
Facilities (AASHTO)
• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO)
• A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design (AASHTO)
• Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive
Approach: An ITE Recommended Practice (ITE)
• Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO)
• Transit Street Design Guide (NACTO)
• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO)
• Urban Street Stormwater Design Guide (NACTO)
• Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) (United
States Access Board)
There are a number of existing design guidance documents that can help
your jurisdiction build out a complete network of streets. Moreover,
since design procedures and protocols continue to evolve, organizations
like NACTO, ITE, and AASHTO are constantly releasing new, updated
editions. While some jurisdictions adopt existing design guidance
outright, others use said guidance to revise or develop their own internal
design guidance documents. Regardless of whether you choose to adopt
something existing or develop your own, it is crucial to set a timeline for
implementation. At what date are engineers required to use the newly
adopted guidance? When will you plan to have a draft and final version
of your internal guidance ready? When do you plan to revisit and review
your guidance to ensure it is still the best state-of-the-practice?
For the most part, jurisdictions have the ability to select appropriate
design guidance for their community. In the past sometimes cities
“A common barrier to implementation of Complete Streets
policies are outdated design protocols with both state and local
governments. Even when design engineers want to advance
Complete Streets design solutions, they are often limited by
design standards, guidelines, forms, and manuals that haven’t
been updated to support their Complete Streets policy and
align with the needs of their communities. This element
rewards governments that are able to align their design
doctrine with their Complete Streets policies.”
– Mike Jelen, PE – Principal Director, WSP
Element #6 44
Item 6.
23COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 7 out of 100 possible points.
• 5 points: Policy directs the adoption of specific, best state-of-the-
practice design guidance and/or requires the development/revision
of internal design policies and guides.
• (1 point) Policy references but does not formally adopt
specific, best state-of-the-practice design guidance.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy sets a specific time frame for implementation.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #6 45
Item 6.
46
Item 6.
25COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
comes to bear on a project to retrofit an existing street that runs through
an area zoned or earmarked in the city’s comprehensive land-use
plan for greater density and a mix of uses, perhaps neighborhood-
serving retail with multi-family housing like apartments or rowhomes.
But those buildings haven’t been built out yet or are in progress.
In this specific example, a Complete Streets policy receiving maximum
points would require the transportation agency to incorporate a
Complete Streets approach in future land-use plans for this area and
consider the needs not just of today’s users of that street, but those
who will be using it in the coming years as new buildings are built next to
the sidewalk and more residents and businesses come to the area. This
contrasts with the approach of the old paradigm, which would just look
at a street running through an area without any mix of uses, people, or
activity and make decisions that ignore zoning maps and comprehensive
land-use plans. There may not be an opportunity to rebuild the street for
Element #7: A strong Complete Streets policy requires
proactive and supportive land-use planning
Streets don’t exist in a vacuum. They are inextricably connected to
the buildings, sidewalks, spaces, homes, businesses, and everything
else around them that they serve. The strongest Complete Streets
policies require the integration of land-use planning to best sync up
with a community’s desires for using and living on their land today
and in the future.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Streets are tools that we use to connect us to destinations. They provide
spaces for us to gather and move around, and create a framework for
creating and capturing economic value so we can build productive places
with opportunity for everyone. They are a means to an end, serving the
places and spaces between all the streets. This element recognizes this
fundamental truth by requiring coordination with land-use planning and
clearly defining how a Complete Streets effort will serve current and
future land uses.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
In the simplest terms, this element requires a jurisdiction’s land-use
policies (including but not limited to plans, zoning ordinances, or similar
documents) to specify how these other non-transportation plans will
both support and be supported by the community’s Complete Streets
vision. For example: A community has a Complete Streets policy and it
“People don’t care what the underlying transportation
function of a street is. What we care about is whether we can
safely and reliably use our streets to access the places we
want to go, on foot, by bike or transit, or by car. This element
supports integrative decision-making by matching street
designs with the planned land use context and adopting a
diverse mix of land uses that encourage shorter trips. This
makes the places we want to go safer and easier to get to.”
– Drusilla van Hengel – Principal, Nelson\Nygaard
Element #7 47
Item 6.
26COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 10 out of 100 possible points.
For municipality/county policies:
• 5 points: Policy requires new or revised land-use policies, plans,
zoning ordinances, or equivalent documents to specify how they
will support and be supported by the community’s Complete
Streets vision.
• (4 points) Policy requires new or revised transportation
plans and/or design guidance to specify how transportation
projects will serve current and future land use, such as by
defining streets based not just on transportation function but
on the surrounding land use.
• (2 points) Policy discusses the connection between
land use and transportation or includes non-binding
recommendations to integrate land use and transportation
planning.
• (1 point) Policy acknowledges land use as a factor related to
transportation planning.
• (0 points) No mention.
For state/MPO policies:
• 5 points: Policy requires new or revised long-range transportation
plans and/or design guidance to specify how transportation
projects will serve current and future land use such as by directing
the adoption of place-based street typologies.
• (2 points) Policy discusses the connection between
land use and transportation or includes non-binding
recommendations to integrate land use and transportation
a decade or more, so build the street to serve the place that’s envisioned
in the land-use plans, rather than the place it once was.
This is the kind of tight integration between land-use and transportation
that is required by the strongest Complete Streets policies. Land-use
considerations should be deeply embedded into the processes and plans
of the transportation planners and their departments.
Complete Streets are also reflective of the needs of the surrounding
community and are designed to serve them, so strong policies always
consider that context throughout the process. It’s also an unfortunate
reality in most places that transforming certain streets to be less
dangerous and better serve everyone in those communities can also
make those areas more attractive for future development, so a forward-
looking policy will specify a need to address potential unintended
consequences—like the displacement of residents due to rising costs of
living—while still prioritizing streets that serve everyone.
Element #7 48
Item 6.
27COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
planning.
• (1 point) Policy acknowledges land use as a factor related to
transportation planning.
• (0 points) No mention.
For all policies:
• 3 points: Policy requires the consideration of the community
context as a factor in decision-making.
• (1 point) Policy mentions community context as a potential
factor in decision-making.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy specifies the need to mitigate unintended
consequences such as involuntary displacement.
• (1 point) Policy acknowledges the possibility of unintended
consequences.
• (0 points) No mention
Element #7 49
Item 6.
50
Item 6.
29COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
performance of the transportation network, staff are able to make
more informed decisions on project design, planning, maintenance,
and operations.
• The general public and advocates are able to hold city agencies
and elected officials accountable. When performance measures
are publicized, transparency and government accountability
is improved since individuals, community organizations, and
advocates are equipped with information they can use to hold their
government accountable to the vision and priorities set out in the
Complete Streets policy.
• Elected officials can better communicate to the public, and
build broader support for Complete Streets. By tracking
progress on the Complete Streets policy, elected officials and
other policymakers have information that helps them better
communicate the status of transportation improvements in
their community. Information on the impact of transportation
investments can also help elected officials build broader support
for Complete Streets.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
The jurisdictions with the strongest Complete Streets policies take four
clear, concrete steps:
1. Establish specific performance measures across a range of
categories, including implementation and equity
2. Set a timeline for the recurring collection of performance
measures
3. Require performance measures to be publicly shared
4. Assign responsibility for collecting and publicizing performance
measures
Element #8: A strong Complete Streets policy measures
progress
How do you know if your Complete Streets policy is working?
You measure it. And then you share the results publicly. A strong
Complete Streets policy requires tracking performance measures
across a range of categories—including implementation and equity—
and making someone responsible for doing it.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
As the old saying goes, “what gets measured, gets done.” That rings
true for Complete Streets policies too—if you want to make sure your
Complete Streets policy is fully realized, you need to measure your
progress. Measuring performance in transportation is not new. But
historically, transportation metrics have focused on motor vehicles with
metrics like pavement quality and congestion. But adopting a strong
Complete Streets policy represents a different approach to transportation
which means committing to new performance measures that reflect the
policy’s vision and motivation.
Performance measures provide a quantitative or qualitative indicator
of the performance of a specific street, corridor, or of the whole
transportation network. This information helps stakeholders better
understand the impact of their Complete Streets policy and take
corrective actions. For example, when progress is tracked:
• Staff and committees tasked with implementing the policy are
able to do their jobs better. With more information on the current
Element #8 51
Item 6.
30COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• Number of trips by walking/rolling, biking, transit, and driving
• Presence of transit facilities, biking facilities, and walking/rolling
facilities
• Sidewalk condition ratings
• Number of curb ramps
• Building vacancy rates
• Access to jobs by mode
• Temporary and permanent jobs created by project
• Emergency vehicle response times
• Number of students who walk or bike to school
• Number of mode users: walk, bike, transit
• Bike route connections to off-road trails
• Number of bike share users
• Air quality
• Number of street trees
• Number of temporary and permanent art installations
• Internal policies and documents updated
• Number of staff trained
• Effectiveness of community engagement process
Additional examples can be found in Evaluating Complete Streets Projects: A
Guide for Practitioners.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this information is only valuable
if it is made publicly available on a consistent basis. To do that means
committing to a timeline of how often the data will be collected and
published publicly and it means putting someone in charge of that
process.
As far as the specific measures are concerned, a community should
adopt performance measures that reflect the community’s priorities,
and more specifically reflect the overall vision and motivations stated
in the Complete Streets policy itself. For example, if your community’s
priority is improving health equity, one metric you might track is serious
injuries by race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, disability status, and/or
neighborhood. Measures should be tailored to a community’s priorities
but they should also cover a wide range of categories to ensure a holistic
evaluation of the transportation network. Some examples of categories
your community might measure are safety, access, economy, public
health, and environment.
Beyond these, it’s crucial to track two specific areas: policy
implementation and equity. For the former, this could include tracking
which internal policies and documents have been updated, how many
staff members have been trained, how many exceptions have been
approved, and how well the public engagement process is working.
Equity is less of a specific single measure, and should instead be
embedded within all performance measures; jurisdictions can do this by
disaggregating the data by race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, disability
status, and/or neighborhood. Measuring this information can help
jurisdictions evaluate whether disparities are being exacerbated or
mitigated.
Below is a list of examples that can be used:
• Number of crashes and severity of injuries
• Injuries and fatalities for all modes
• Presence of adequate lighting
• Travel time in key corridors (point A to point B) by mode
Element #8 52
Item 6.
31COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
• 1 point: Policy assigns responsibility for collecting and publicizing
performance measures to a specific individual/agency/committee.
• (0 points) No mention.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 13 out of 100 possible points.
• 3 points: Policy establishes specific performance measures under
multiple categories such as access, economy, environment, safety,
and health.
• (1 point) Policy mentions measuring performance under
multiple categories but does not establish specific measures.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy establishes specific performance measures for
the implementation process such as tracking how well the public
engagement process reaches underrepresented populations or
updates to policies and documents.
• (1 point) Policy mentions measuring the implementation
process but does not establish specific measures.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: Policy embeds equity in performance measures by
measuring disparities by income/race/vehicle access/language/etc.
as relevant to the jurisdiction.
• (1 point) Policy mentions embedding equity in performance
measures but is not specific about how data will be
disaggregated.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy specifies a time frame for recurring collection of
performance measures.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 2 points: Policy requires performance measures to be released
publicly.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #8 53
Item 6.
54
Item 6.
33COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
ignoring the more holistic impacts of improving access to jobs and
services.
What does this element look like in practical terms?
This is often the part of the transportation planning process that is the
most opaque for the public: How projects are selected.
In some places, such as with the Virginia’s Smart Scale program, projects
are measured quantitatively against a range of predetermined criteria
and the highest-scoring projects receive funding.a This is far more
transparent than Virginia’s previous process. In other states or cities,
this process is much more of a black box, and residents may have far less
confidence that anything other than politics or influence is shaping which
projects move forward. A strong Complete Streets policy both opens
up this black box and institutes criteria that prioritize projects that will
advance the community’s goals (see element #1) within their Complete
Streets policy, such as improving active transportation options,
completing a network of Complete Streets, targeting underserved
communities, and reducing health, safety, and economic disparities.
If the process for choosing transportation projects is unchanged by the
Complete Streets policy, then that policy will fail to be fully implemented.
a Read more about Virginia’s Smart Scale program here: https://smartscale.org/how_it_
works/default.asp
Element #9: A strong Complete Streets policy sets criteria
for choosing projects that prioritizes Complete Streets
projects
Every local community, region, and state has a process by which
they choose which transportation projects to fund and build. A
strong Complete Streets policy changes that process by adding new
or updated criteria that give extra weight to projects that advance
Complete Streets and improve the network.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
A Complete Streets policy that results in the same old road projects
being built is just a paper tiger. A strong and effective Complete Streets
policy starts to reshape the process by which projects are chosen for
funding and advancement.
At every level of government—state, metro, and local—there is some
sort of prescribed process in place for selecting transportation projects
for funding and construction. The strongest policies clearly define new
or updated criteria for that process to ensure that Complete Streets
projects get prioritized to advance.
It’s also often true that the existing, conventional process for choosing
projects prioritizes the needs of people who are driving rather than
all people within a community. There’s a heavy focus on criteria that
prioritize vehicle level of service (how many cars can be moved through
a corridor), or account for potential impacts to vehicle travel time, while
Element #9 55
Item 6.
34COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy scoring details
Three clear changes are the goal for this element. First, modifying
the jurisdiction’s project selection criteria. Second, establishing clear
and specific criteria that will prioritize Complete Streets projects
and create better multimodal network connectivity for all users. And
third, embedding equity considerations in those criteria by targeting
underserved communities and/or alleviating disparities in health, safety,
economic benefit, and access to destinations.
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 8 out of 100 possible points.
• 5 points: Policy establishes specific criteria to encourage funding
prioritization for Complete Streets implementation.
• (1 point) Policy mentions revising project selection criteria to
encourage Complete Streets implementation.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: Policy specifically addresses how equity will be
embedded in project selection criteria.
• (0 points) No mention.
Element #9 56
Item 6.
57
Item 6.
36COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
thorough and thoughtful implementation.a
What does this element look like in practical terms?
To produce different outcomes when it comes to designing and building
streets, departments of transportation must change the way they
operate, including changes to their project development process, design
guidelines, and performance measures. This is most successfully done
through training, education, and strong leadership. Jurisdictions should
include language and actionable steps for implementation in their
Complete Streets policy. Implementation steps are worth the most
points out of all of the policy elements, as they lay out specific next steps
for putting the policy into practice.
Unlike the other nine elements, based on our long experience and
hard-won knowledge borne of real-world experience in scores of
communities, this element is a little more prescriptive. These five short
steps—to be embedded in the policy itself—provide an actionable
checklist for implementing a new, strong Complete Streets policy:
• Restructure or revise related procedures, plans, regulations,
and other processes to accommodate all users on every project.
This could include incorporating Complete Streets checklists or
other tools into decision-making processes.
a While “implementation” was included in the National Complete Streets Coalition’s
pre-2018 policy framework, it was revised to set the bar far higher and provide clearer
guidelines, including increased accountability from jurisdictions and requirements to
include equity and community engagement.
Element #10: A strong Complete Streets policy requires a
plan for implementation
A formal commitment to a Complete Streets approach is just
the beginning. A strong policy also spells out specific steps for
implementing the policy in ways that will make a measurable impact
on what gets built and where.
Why is this element integral to a strong Complete Streets
policy?
Over the last decade, we’ve come to understand that a Complete Streets
policy is only the first step to making streets safer and more accessible
to everyone. The strongest policies often represent a massive paradigm
shift from the current practices, agency processes, and standards that
have been producing unsafe, incomplete, inaccessible, and unproductive
streets. And so they must also include a clear plan for how an agency will
go about putting the policy into practice.
We have seen policies in the past that are clear and strong in nearly
every area, yet fail to produce the desired impact because there was
no plan, checklist, or entity in charge of institutionalizing the policy
and putting it into practice. (If everyone is responsible, then no one is
responsible.) These missing components make it difficult (or impossible)
to ensure professional staff is trained, stakeholders are held accountable,
processes are updated, and the public is equitably engaged.
And so achieving a Complete Streets policy’s ambitious goals requires
this tenth and final element: A clear, measurable, accountable plan for
Element #10 58
Item 6.
37COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FRAMEWORK
the timing and/or staff members for the training and workshops.
• (1 point) Policy mentions workshops or other training
opportunities for transportation staff.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: The policy assigns responsibility for implementation
to a new or existing committee that includes both internal and
external stakeholders that are representative of underinvested
and vulnerable communities. The policy is specific about which
internal and external stakeholders are/will be represented on the
committee.
• (1 point) Policy assigns oversight of implementation to a
specific body that may not include both internal and external
stakeholders.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 6 points: The policy creates a community engagement plan
with specific strategies for who, when, and how they will
approach public engagement in the project selection, design,
and implementation process. The policy specifically addresses
how the jurisdiction will overcome barriers to engagement for
underrepresented communities.
• (3 points) Policy creates a community engagement plan with
specific strategies for who, when, and how they will approach
public engagement but does not address underrepresented
communities.
• (1 point) Policy mentions community engagement but does
not go into detail about specific strategies.
• (0 points) No mention.
• Develop new design policies and guides or revise existing
policies to reflect the current state of best practices in
transportation design. Communities may also elect to adopt
national or state-level recognized design guidance.
• Offer workshops and other training opportunities to
transportation staff, community leaders, and the general public.
• Create a committee to oversee implementation. The committee
should include both external and internal stakeholders as
well as representatives from advocacy groups, underinvested
communities, and vulnerable populations such as people of color,
older adults, children, low-income communities, non-native English
speakers, those who do not own or cannot access a car, and those
living with disabilities.
• Create a community engagement plan that considers equity
by targeting advocacy organizations and underrepresented
communities which could include non-native English speakers,
people with disabilities, etc. depending on the local context.
Policy scoring details
In our framework for evaluating and scoring Complete Streets policies,
this element is worth a total of 15 out of 100 possible points.
• 3 points: The policy requires that related procedures, plans,
regulations, and other processes be revised within a specified time
frame.
• (1 point) The policy mentions revising procedures, plans,
regulations, and other processes.
• (0 points) No mention.
• 3 points: The policy requires workshops or other training
opportunities for transportation staff. The policy is specific about
Element #10 59
Item 6.
Smart Growth America advocates for people who want to live and work
in great neighborhoods. We envision a country where no matter where
you live, or who you are, you can enjoy living in a place that is healthy,
prosperous, and resilient. Learn more at www.smartgrowthamerica.org.
The National Complete Streets Coalition, a program of Smart
Growth America, is a non-profit, non-partisan alliance of public interest
organizations and transportation professionals committed to the
development and implementation of Complete Streets policies and
practices. A nationwide movement launched by the Coalition in 2004,
Complete Streets is the integration of people and place in the planning,
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation
networks. www.completestreets.org
Smart Growth America project team: Based on language produced in
in 2018, the primary authors of this revised version were Mae Hanzlik
and Steve Davis. Released in April 2023.
This report can be found online at https://smartgrowthamerica.org/10-
elements-of-complete-streets/
Thank you to Stantec
The cover and 10 element graphics
were produced by Stantec and their
Urban Places department. The National
Complete Streets Coalition extends
our deepest thanks to Stantec for their
contributions to this document and to our work.
National Complete
Streets Coalition
1152 15th Street Ste 450
Washington, DC 20005
smartgrowthamerica.org
@smartgrowthusa
@completestreets
60
Item 6.
61
Item 6.
62
Item 6.
63
Item 6.
64
Item 6.
65
Item 6.
66
Item 6.
Living Streets Policy
Introduction
Living streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote
safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental
sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The Living Streets Policy
defines Edina’s vision for Living Streets and the principles and plans that will guide implementation.
The Living Street Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving, reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy
consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives such the
“do.town” effort related to community health, and the Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related
to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Street Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set
by other agencies. For example, the Living Streets Policy will support the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan which addresses mandates established under the Clean Water Act.
The Living Streets Policy provides the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Plan will address how
the Policy will be implemented by providing more detailed information on street design, traffic calming, bike
facilities, landscaping and lighting, as well as best practices for community engagement during the design
process. Lastly, existing and future supporting plans such as the Bicycle Plan, Active Routes to Schools, Sidewalk
Priority Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan will help to identify which projects are priorities with respect to
this Policy.
Living Streets Vision
Edina is a place where...
• Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible;
• Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike;
• Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity;
• Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity;
• Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments;
• Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and
private sectors alike; and
• Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses.
Living Streets Principles
The following principles will guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy. The City will incorporate
these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making
public and private land use decisions.
1
67
Item 6.
All Users and All Modes
The City will plan, design, and build high quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of
the most vulnerable users (pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly, and disabled) while enhancing
safety and convenience for all users, and providing access and mobility for all modes.
Connectivity
• The City will design, operate, and maintain a transportation system that provides a highly
connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel.
• The City will seek opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation. This includes
preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way, and adding new rights-of-way to enhance
connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.
• The City will prioritize non-motorized improvements to key destinations such as public
facilities, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas.
• The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk
networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the
development.
• Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical
termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street
construction or reconstruction project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and
continuity.
Application
• The City will apply this Living Streets Policy to all street projects including those involving
operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation,
or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes
privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails.
• The City will act as an advocate for Living Street principles when a local transportation or land
use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency.
• Living Streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of
smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time.
• The City will draw on all sources of transportation funding to implement this Policy and
actively pursue grants, cost sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources
as applicable.
• All City departments will support the vision and principles outlined in the Policy in their
work.
Exceptions
Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving, and
rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document
proposed exceptions as part of the project proposal.
2
68
Item 6.
Exceptions:
• A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable
condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, or pothole
filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance
activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians.
• The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a
bikeway, walkway, or transit enhancement as part of a project.
• The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of
significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native
vegetation, wetlands, or other critical areas.
Design
The City will develop and adopt guidelines as part of the Living Streets Plan to direct the planning,
funding, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks,
paths and trails. The guidelines will allow for context-sensitive designs.
The City’s design guidelines will:
• Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary.
• Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-use
pathways on all arterial and collector streets and on local connector streets as determined by
context. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building,
community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context.
• Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed
to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and appropriate.
• Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes.
• Allocate right-of-way for boulevards.
• Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets
principles.
• Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain
gardens and other features to improve air and water quality.
The design guidelines in the Living Streets Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals,
rules, regulations, and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will
update the Living Streets Plan.
Context Sensitivity
Although many streets look more or less the same, every street is a unique combination of its
neighborhood, adjacent land uses, natural features, street design, users, and modes. To accommodate
these differences, the City will:
• Seek input from stakeholders;
• Design streets with a strong sense of place;
• Be mindful of preserving and protecting natural features, such as waterways, trees, slopes, and
ravines;
• Be mindful of existing land uses and neighborhood character; and
3
69
Item 6.
• Coordinate with business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant
commercial districts.
Benchmarks and Performance Measures
The City will monitor and measure its performance relative to this Policy. Benchmarks demonstrating
success include:
• Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling;
• Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely;
• Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably;
• An active way of life is available to all;
• There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries;
• No unfiltered street water flows into local waterways; storm water volume is reduced; and
• Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations.
The City will draw on the following data to measure performance. Additional performance measures may
be identified as this Policy is implemented.
• Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department.
• Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests.
• Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys.
• Resident responses to post-project surveys.
• The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and
after the project.
• Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure.
• Speed statistics of vehicles on local streets.
Implementation
The goal of this Policy is to define and guide the implementation of Living Streets principles. Several
steps still need to be taken to reach this goal. The first step will be to develop a Living Streets Plan to
guide the implementation of the Policy. The Plan will:
• Identify and implement standards or guidelines for street and intersection design, universal
pedestrian access, transit accommodations, and pedestrian crossings;
• Identify and implement standards or guidelines for streetscape ecosystems, including
street water management, urban forestry, street furniture, and utilities;
• Identify regulatory demands and their relationship to this Policy (ADA/PROWAG, MPCA,
MNMUTCD, MnDOT state aid, watershed districts);
• Define the process by which residents participate in street design and request Living Streets
improvements; and
• Define standards for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to ensure access to key public, private
and regional destinations.
4
70
Item 6.
Additional implementation steps include:
• Communicate this Policy to residents and other stakeholders; educate and engage on an
ongoing basis;
• Update City ordinances, engineering standards, policies and guidelines to agree with this
Policy;
• Inventory building and zoning codes to bring these into agreement with Living Streets
principles as established by this Policy;
• Update and document maintenance policies and practices to support Policy goals;
• Update and document enforcement policies and practices to ensure safe streets for all modes;
• Incorporate Living Streets concepts in the next circulation of the City’s general plans
(Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle Plan, Active Routes to School Plan, etc.);
• Incorporate Living Streets as a criteria when evaluating transportation priorities in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP);
• Review and update funding policies to ensure funding sources for Living Streets projects; and
• Coordinate with partner jurisdictions to achieve goals in this Policy.
5
71
Item 6.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
RESOLUTION NO. 20-67
RESOLUTION STATING ONGOING SUPPORT AND INTENT TO UTILIZE
SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROCESS WITH PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DESIGN
WHEREAS the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) defines Complete Streets as
streets for everyone that are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and
across a complete street; and
WHEREAS Green Streets typically refers to street design that reduces environmental impacts by
reducing impervious surface, managing stormwater, and providing shade. Living Streets
combines the concepts of complete streets and green streets, and puts additional focus on quality
of life aspects for City residents; and
WHEREAS a required best practice of the Minnesota Green Step Cities program is the adoption
of a Complete or Living Streets policy (or documented practices) that addresses street standards,
street trees, and storm water management; and
WHEREAS the City of Lakeville has followed Living Streets principles in its planning and
community design, and has demonstrated said commitment by adopting a transportation goal
within the 2040 Lakeville Comprehensive Plan to develop a multi -modal transportation system
in which autos, trucks, rail, transit, bicycles and pedestrians are adequately served and can safely
co -exist; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville incorporates Living Streets practices including, but not limited
to:
Evaluating Living Street standards on subdivision and major roadway projects
Installation of traffic calming measures, including roundabouts, flashing yellow left turn
signals and synchronized traffic signals on major corridors, in partnership with Dakota
County, to reduce vehicle idling
Approved Spirit of Brandtjen Farm Development, a 450 -acre residential and commercial
subdivision with many Living Street components.
Implementation of watershed best management practices, including raingardens, creek
and shoreline restoration, and native plantings within public right-of-way, in partnership
with the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) in response to the
City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit;
72
Item 6.
Maintenance of established boulevard tree placement and trimming practices that address
safe access to City streets for all users.
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville encourages pedestrian and bicyclist use through the planning,
construction and maintenance of a well-developed local trail system, including:
Implementation of a Bicycle and Trail System Plan that enhances the City's
transportation system/network
Inclusion of pedestrian and bicyclist facilities into major roadway projects
Subdivision standards that include trails and sidewalks, providing connecting and access
to neighborhoods, parks, schools and employment centers
118 miles of developed, publicly accessible trails
The identification and remediation of connectivity breaks (gaps) in the City's trail system
and the adoption of a Trail Connection Policy;
Trail maps and markers posted along City trails, and all transportation maps (trails,
streets, etc.) available via the City's website;
Establishment of a Winter Snow Removal Policy for city trails, including partnerships
with three independent school districts within the City to ensure safe pedestrian mobility
to schools
WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville encourages the use of transit and ridesharing through several
advantages available to residents and commuters, including:
Express bus route service to two Park & Ride facilities, including a dedicated bus -only exit
to Kenrick Avenue Park & Ride and dedicated bus -only shoulders along Cedar Avenue
to/from Lakeville Cedar Park & Ride
Two Park & Pool facilities along Interstate 35
Lakeville LOOP Circulator Bus service for people age 62 and older
Dial -A -Ride bus service
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lakeville supports the principles of
Living & Green Streets and will work with MnDOT, Dakota County, and appropriate agencies so
that Living Street elements are evaluated where possible for City transportation projects by
providing appropriate accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders, and
disabled persons through the ongoing creation of a multi -modal transportation network and to
ensure design that reduces environmental impacts by reducing impervious surface, managing
stormwater, and providing shade.
ADOPTED by the Lakeville City Council this 6th day of July 2020
J *4
Douglas . Anderson, Mayor Charlene Friedges, City Cler
73
Item 6.