Regarding Scooters

From this week’s Manager’s update:

DATE: August 3, 2018
TO: Ruffin Hall, City Manager
FROM: Michael Moore, Transportation Director
RE: Bird Scooters


Approximately three weeks ago, Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, began operating in the City of Raleigh. These scooters operate like dockless bike sharing companies, where users employ a smartphone mobile application to locate, unlock and rent their service. Approximately 150 Bird scooters are currently operating in Raleigh, with distribution focused primarily in Downtown, Glenwood South, and Cameron Village. In general, commercial activity that occurs in the right of way is not permitted without enabling action by the City. No such enabling action occurred prior the deployment of these scooters by Bird.

The City Attorney’s Office has determined that dockless scooters fall into a similar classification as mopeds. Mopeds require an operator to be a minimum of 16 years old and wear a helmet while operating the moped. Neither a driver’s license nor automobile liability insurance are required. Mopeds must also have a title and be registered with the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, and while mopeds are motor vehicles, they are treated more like bicycles than automobiles or motorcycles for the purposes of North Carolina’s motor vehicle laws.


Several other cities, including Austin, Charlotte, Denver, Durham, Indianapolis, San Francisco, and Washington DC have implemented or are considering trial or pilot programs to more thoroughly evaluate the multitude of issues arising from dockless scooters in their transportation environment.

These cities have identified various operating parameters, addressing issues related to scooter specifications, permissible fleet size, fleet rebalancing, scooter condition and maintenance, parking locations, insurance requirements, data sharing, permitting, fees, and penalties.

Several cities, including Charlotte, have elected to permit scooter operations under pilot program or trial permit period. This approach affords local governments the opportunity to better understand the technology, the positive and negative issues it may generate, and its potential place in the local transportation system.

Current Work and Next Steps

City Staff, including representatives from Transportation and Police, met with representatives from Bird to further confirm the operating parameters of the company. A key focus of this conversation was, and will continue to be, ensuring public safety for all rental system users relative to other users of the public right-of-way.

Staff shared the City’s intent to maintain the quality of life for our citizens and to prevent any negative impacts on local neighborhoods or businesses. To this point, staff continues to share situations and issues where scooters were operated in contradiction to Bird’s terms and conditions of use (multiple riders, no helmets, etc.) or were improperly parked, posing tripping hazards for pedestrians.

In response, Bird has provided “push” notifications to their users and has a program to provide free helmets (for the cost of shipping). They have also conducted free helmet giveaways recently at the Downtown Farmers Market.

Raleigh’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) is currently discussing potential frameworks to recommend to City Council that would permit the operation of dockless bikeshare systems within Raleigh’s rights of way. While somewhat different than scooter sharing companies, these systems share many similarities with dockless bikeshare systems and can be permitted and regulated through similar mechanisms. Staff anticipates a final recommendation from the BPAC on an approach to dockless bicycles at their August 20 meeting that would be presented for the Council’s consideration on September 4.

Transportation staff will continue to work closely with the City Attorney’s Office on this matter and will provide another update to Council during the “Report of the Manager” portion of the regular meeting on August 21.

ADA Compliance

Here is an email I  received from the City’s Chief of Staff regarding ADA compliance by the City:

CM Cox,

City-owned buildings are compliant with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

While existing city buildings may not have all the ADA accessibility features that more modern facilities may have – due to the era of construction – city buildings comply with the federal statute and amendments. We can always do better and there is always room for improvement.

The obligations of State and local government for ADA compliance and program accessibility are in the Department of Justice ADA Title II regulations 28 CFR Part 35.150. I have included a link to the reference here:

The civil rights law which is the ADA recognizes the following:

35.150 (b)(2)(i) – Elements that have not been altered in existing facilities on or after March 15, 2012, and that comply with the corresponding technical and scoping specifications for those elements in either the 1991 Standards or in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS), Appendix A to 41 CFR part 101–19.6 (July 1, 2002 ed.), 49 FR 31528, app. A (Aug. 7, 1984) are not required to be modified in order to comply with the requirements set forth in the 2010 Standards.

Based on this section of the federal regulation, it is not correct that City-owned buildings are out of compliance with the ADA.

Please let me know if you need anything further at this time.

Safe Passage

Raleigh passed an ordinance in August 2015 to allow outdoor seating at restaurants and bars downtown. At the December 5, 2017 Council meeting, Council Member Crowder indicated the outdoor dining program has been in place for about 18 months and she would like for Council to request the City Manager to prepare a staff report on the status of the outdoor dining permit program. She stated she would like for the report to include the following components:

  • A list of applicants for permits since program inception with appropriate data
  • A list of permits issued and establishments issued with appropriate data
  • A listing of renewed permits by fiscal year and disposition of permits not renewed
  • A reporting of citations issued against all permits in place.
  • A reporting of complaints that have been turned over to staff about the outdoor dining in general.
  • A city-wide reporting of all easement operating outdoor seating on the public right-of-way compared to the roster of permits issued as of December 1, 2017.

She moved that the report be prepared. Her motion was seconded by Council Member Stephenson and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

The report was prepared by staff and presented at the Feb 20, 2018 Council meeting. During the presentation, Councilor Crowder noted that the final sentence of “Suggested Amendments” on pages three and four of the staff memorandum in the agenda packet reads “The City Council may wish to consider removing this allowance.”  She asked if the allowance was for meandering.  APD Crane explained the City Code is not specific in that the pedestrian path must be a straight path on the block face.  The Code does not explicitly prohibit a path that might meander down the block face (he illustrated a meandering path on one of the slides).

Councilor Crowder said that adding clarity in the Code would be helpful and would also help pedestrians who are impaired in some way.  Councilor Branch opined it is very important to keep regulations for traversing sidewalks consistent throughout, especially from a public safety standpoint, so first responders will not have to meander around tables and chairs when responding to an emergency.

Councilor Crowder said she would like to move forward with stronger language about no meandering.  Mr. Thompson, whose mother was visually impaired, agreed and said it makes no sense to allow meandering as it is an accident waiting to happen.

Councilor Crowder moved to direct staff to revise the ordinance on outdoor dining to reflect today’s discussion.  Her motion was seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried unanimously.  The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a vote of 8-0.

Upon passage of the motion staff was directed to review the draft ordinance with the Downtown Raleigh Alliance (DRA) and downtown businesses. The draft ordinance was brought back to Council in May.

At the May meeting Council Member Crowder moved approval as presented. Her motion was seconded by Council Member Branch and put to a vote which passed with all members voting in the affirmative except Council Member Thompson who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

On Doubling the Allowable Homes in Raleigh

Hello everyone,

You have no doubt heard at least a little bit about accessory dwelling units – small one or even two story homes constructed on the same lot as a larger main home.

Advocates of ADUs argue that every residential property in the city should be rezoned to allow ADUs. Here is why I think this position is wrong and why I think that overlay districts are the best approach.

Raleigh is geographically a large city with 144 square miles. It has many diverse neighborhoods ranging from historic neighborhoods to newer suburban neighborhoods at Brier Creek, Leesville, Creedmoor Rd, Strickland, Falls of Neuse, Louisburg Rd, New Bern, etc. Some neighborhoods are near universities and colleges. Some are not. Some like Boylan Heights, Glenwood-Brooklyn, and Oakwood are within walking distance of downtown high rises while others are within walking distance of Falls Dam, Falls Lake, and Umstead park – very different environments.

Advocates of ADUs have proposed rezoning the entire city with all its diversity to allow two residential structures per lot effectively doubling with the stroke of the pen the allowable residential density of Raleigh. In my view this is simply too dramatic of a change and it is a change that happens without real citizen engagement or input.

I support the use of overlays because it gives each of Raleigh’s neighborhoods a chance to consider if rezoning for ADUs is right for them. If some think that ADUs are right for their neighborhood, then let’s have a process whereby that neighborhood can have them. However, let’s not be so bold to impose one neighborhood’s wishes on every other neighborhood throughout the entire city. An overlay process allows that happen.

If enough people want ADUs in their neighborhood, then with an overlay process, they can request to rezone their neighborhood. What does this mean exactly? A typical neighborhood consists of about 30 to 70 homes. If one or more people live in a neighborhood, then they can request a rezoning. Upon receiving that request the City will start a public process to consider the request. If enough people in the neighborhood agree, the request will proceed to the city’s Planning Commission and the City Council.

Like any rezoning, the request will be considered publicly. The pros and cons will be heard and ultimately Council will render a decision. If Council agrees with the request, then an overlay district will be applied to the neighborhood allowing ADUs.

There is nothing new about overlay districts. Overlay districts have been used for many years to preserve the unique characters and history of many city neighborhoods. Overlays are a recognition that one size does not fit all. And overlays are an exercise in democracy allowing each neighborhood to determine its own destiny without dictating those terms to every other neighborhood in the city.

With overlays the city can move forward allowing rezoning for ADUs where they make sense and where they are wanted. Rather than rushing to rezone the entire city to double residential density everywhere, I think that taking a more measured approach allowing each neighborhood to participate in that important decision is the best approach.

Thank you for listening.

David Cox, PhD

Raleigh City Council

Do You Rent? Know Your Rights and Obligations

An updated version of the “Tenants’ Rights and Obligations Habdbook” published by the City of Raleigh Fair Housing Board is now available. Download your copy today with this link:

In English :

In Spanish:

Times of Change

(On the decision to appoint At-Large Councilor Russ Stephenson to the GoTriangle Board of Trustees)

Every new City Council brings change. Change happened after the 2015 election when Corey Branch, Dickie Thompson, and I joined the Council. And change continued after the 2017 election with Nicole Stewart and Stef Mendell joining Council. Prior to 2015 Kay Crowder had served only part of a term. Compared to 2013 all but two of the members of Council are new.

After the current Council was seated, we began discussions regarding assignments to boards and commissions. These discussions were happening as early as January with some of them documented in the January 9th City Council minutes regarding transit:

Councilor Stephenson expressed the opinion that Council should have a stronger voice in ensuring that planning for transit is in sync with the current Council’s vision. GoTriangle was specifically cited and Councilor Stephenson noted that getting transit funding and projects rolling out is painfully slow. Councilor Stephenson asked about accelerating the process of getting service on the ground. Council specifically discussed the Raleigh Transit Authority, TPAC, CAMPO, and the GoTriangle board and Council’s memberships and relationships to these organizations.

Since January individual Council members have continued to review the memberships of these organizations. Councilor Branch serves as liaison to the Raleigh Transit Authority, Mayor McFarlane serves as member of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) that oversees roads and highways,  and Councilor Thompson serves on the Airport Authority. TPAC (Transit Planning Advisory committee) is a staff-level advisory committee. The only regional transportation or transit organization that Raleigh does not have Council representation is GoTriangle (formerly known as the Triangle Transit Authority).

From the GoTriangle website:

GoTriangle is governed by a 13-member Board of Trustees. The region’s principal municipalities and counties appoint ten (10) members to staggered four-year terms. The North Carolina Secretary of Transportation appoints three (3) ex officio nonvoting members. By law, the Board of Trustees is authorized to make decisions and enact policy for the agency.

Representation of municipalities and local governments by elected officials is as follows:

  • Cary: Jennifer Robinson, Cary Council Member
  • Chapel Hill: Michael Parker, Chapel Hill Council Member
  • Durham County: Ellen Reckhow, Commissioner
  • Durham County: Wendy Jacobs, Commissioner
  • City of Durham: Steve Schewel, Mayor
  • Orange County: Mark Marcopolos, Commissioner
  • Wake County: Sig Hutchinson, Commissioner
  • Wake Forest: Vivian Jones, Mayor

Appointed by the Secretary of Transportation:  Valerie Jordan, Nina Szlosberg-Landis, and Andrew Perkins, Jr.

The City of Raleigh had no Council representation and the majority on Council decided to appoint At-Large Councilor Stephenson. Moving to this decision was no secret. Raleigh is limited to two positions on the Board of Trustees. Given that Mary Ann Baldwin had been a member since 2009, was previously Council’s representative but gave up her seat on Council, it was logical to replace Ms Baldwin with Mr. Stephenson.

I think it is unfortunate and, frankly, unfair for Ms. Baldwin to publicly characterize this decision as political retribution. I have had no personal conflict with Ms. Baldwin. On the issues of the day such as granny flats we mostly agree.  I acknowledge that I have been a much stronger supporter of protecting neighborhoods from the negative impacts of commercial development. However, any differences of opinion on these or other issues certainly do not rise to the level of exacting political retribution.

City Council did change in 2015 and again in 2017. More than 90 million dollars a year are now being collected for transit. In my view it is important that this Council’s direction be represented well and that those tax dollars be spent responsibly and in a manner that reflects that values and goals of the current Council and the electorate.

Like Ms. Baldwin, Councilor Russ Stephenson is an At-Large Councilor elected by all the citizens of Raleigh. As an architect and urban planner Mr. Stephenson has long been involved in transit. He is well qualified to represent Council’s interests on GoTriangle’s Board of Trustees.

Councilor Stephenson’s qualifications include:

  • Professional urban design and planning experience for communities from Virginia to Florida including work incorporated in Raleigh’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Stanhope Village Small Area Plan)
  • Received NC American Planning Association awards for multiple town plans
  • As Planning Commissioner in 2003-2005, led efforts to draft Raleigh’s first Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Ordinance
  • Since elected to Raleigh City Council in 2005, led every Council discussion on transit and land use, including transit and land use elements of Raleigh’s 2009 Comprehensive Plan and Raleigh’s 2013 Unified Development Ordinance
  • Directly responsible for incorporating “Complete Streets” policies in Raleigh’s Comprehensive Plan to promote multi-modal mobility.
  • Directly responsible for incorporating all transit modes in the UDO’s “Infrastructure Sufficiency” standards

It is my honor to support Councilor Stephenson’s appointment to the GoTriangle Board of Trustees.

Thank you.

David Cox, PhD
Raleigh City Council, District B

Accessory Dwelling Unit Overlays

Raleigh is a large city. One regulatory idea is that neighborhoods could petition the City to allow ADUs in their area. The process is referred to as creating an overlay district.

Overlay districts are used today. Some are historic overlay districts for preserving historic sections of the city such as Oakwood or Glenwood-Brooklyn. Others are neighborhood conservation overlay districts for preserving the architectural style of an area. A good example is the Five Points East neighborhood overlay conservation district.

For ADUs there could be two ways to apply overlays. In one way, ADUs would be permitted if a neighborhood requested them (the opt in approach). In the second approach, ADUs would, by default, be allowed everywhere but neighborhoods would create an overlay to disallow their use (the opt out approach).

For this poll, there are two additional options: allow ADUs everywhere without requiring any overlays and disallow ADUs everywhere without requiring overlays.

[yop_poll id=”2″]


Short Term Rentals – Moving Forward to a Solution for Raleigh

Raleigh IS moving towards legalizing short term rentals. Raleigh’s short term rental task force recommended three types of short term rentals. As Council and the residents consider what is best for Raleigh, here is how the task force’s recommendations compare with those of Asheville, Austin, and New Orleans.


In June 2017 Raleigh’s Short Term Rental Task Force delivered a report containing definitions and recommendations for regulating short term rentals. Since that time we have obtained more information including what City Council recently learned from a trip to Asheville where we met with Asheville’s Mayor and city officials.

Raleigh’s STR Task Force recommended three types of short term rentals referred simply as Type I, Type II, and Type III:

Type I rentals – defined as short term rental of less than 30 days in which the owner or property manager is present during the entire period of the rental.

Type II rentals – defined as short term rental of less than 30 days in which the owner or property manager is not required to be present during the entire period of the rental, but must reside on the property for more than 180 days of the year.

Type III rentals – defined as short term rental of less than 30 days where neither the owner or property manager resided on the property.

It is instructive to compare these definitions to what Asheville has implemented. One type of short term rental is called a “homestay.” Homestays are rentals of up to two guest rooms where overnight lodging is provided for compensation in a residential district. Homestays are stays limited to less than 30 days and are managed by a full-time resident of the property who is present and residing in the home when lodgers are present.

In order to be “present during the homestay term,” the full time resident shall be at the property overnight and not away on vacation, visiting friends or family, traveling out of town for business or personal reasons, etc. during the homestay term. However, the full-time resident may be temporarily absent from the property for purposes related to normal residential activities such as shopping, working, attending class, etc.

Asheville’s homestays most closely correspond to the Task Force’s Type I rentals. Asheville allows other short term rentals that are for 30 days or less that are not homestays. Those short term rentals are referred to as short term vacation rentals (STVRs) and are restricted to certain non-residential districts that allow lodging. STVRs most closely correspond to the Task Force’s Type III rentals.

Asheville does not provide short term rentals that correspond to the Task Force’s Type II. However, if a property doesn’t meet the homestay requirements, an applicant can submit a conditional use zoning for a STVR. My interpretation is that this would be the mechanism for allowing whole house rentals in residential districts.

Aside from the general definition of a homestay, Asheville has several requirements for them:

  • No activities other than lodging shall be provided
  • No additional displays of goods, products, services, or other advertising shall be visible from outside the dwelling
  • No additional off-street parking is required
  • Only one homestay shall be permitted per lot/parcel
  • Homestay permits shall be limited to one person at any given time
  • No signage shall be allowed for homestays
  • The length of stay of guests shall not exceed 30 days
  • Exterior lighting shall be residential in nature and shall comply with the lighting requirements of the UDO
  • The homestay owner or operator shall maintain liability insurance on the property, which covers the homestay use and homestay guests
  • The homestay owner or operator must pay any applicable taxes, including occupancy and sales taxes, to the appropriate governmental entity
  • The homestay must be reviewed annually and inspected for compliance

To compare, let’s consider the details of what the Task Force recommended for Type I rentals.

  • A Type I short term residential lodging facility must have a resident manager. The resident manager may be either the property owner of the Short Term Residential Lodging Facility or another person appointed by the property owner.
  • This resident manager must be domiciled on the premise for at least 181 calendar days per year and must be present in the dwelling unit throughout the rental period. Proof of address of the resident manager and telephone number must accompany the application.
  • There shall be a maximum of five total bedrooms permitted within a Type I short term residential lodging facility.

There are no caps for either Asheville’s homestays or Type I rentals.


Austin also defines three types of short term rentals: Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3.

Type 1 are owner-occupied or associated with an owner-occupied principal residence. Austin includes the rental of an entire dwelling unit in their definition of Type 1. Austin also defines Type 1 to include only part of the unit, at a minimum a sleeping room (with shared full bathroom), is limited to a single party of individuals, and the owner is generally present during the rental.

Austin requires the short term rental applicant to prove that he or she owns the property as their primary residence.

Type 2 are not owner occupied single family or duplexes. Austin places a cap on the percentage of STRs allowed to legally operate in each census tract of the city. Type 2 rentals are only allowed in certain commercial zoning districts:

  • Central Business District (CBD)
  • Downtown Mixed Use (DMU)
  • Planned Unit Development (PUD)
  • General-Retail – Mixed Use (GR-MU)
  • Commercial Services – Mixed Use (CS-MU)
  • Commercial Services – Vertical Mixed Use (CS-V)
  • General Retail – Vertical Mixed Use (GR-V)

Type 3 rentals are also not owner occupied but are limited to multifamily properties such as apartments and condos. They include the rental of an entire unit. Applicable geographic caps must be adhered to. It appears that the distinction between types 2 and 3 is that Type 2 rentals are limited to certain commercial districts whereas that restriction isn’t stated for Type 3 rentals.

New Orleans

New Orleans also defines three types of short term rentals:

  • Accessory Short Term Rentals
  • Temporary Short Term Rentals
  • Commercial Short Term Rentals

Accessory rentals are owner occupied and limited to three bedrooms. The owner must be present during the rental.

Temporary rentals require an in-town property manager who is available at all times while the unit is rented. Temporary rentals are limited to 90 nights per year. Occupancy is limited to 2 guests per room with a max of 10 guests, whichever is less. Entire units can be rented.

Commercial rentals are limited to 5 bedrooms and 10 guests. The owner/occupant does not need to be present during the rental period. There is no limitation on the number of rental nights per license year. Commercial rentals must be in a non-residential zoning.

Raleigh’s Boards and Commissions

Interested in serving on one of Raleigh’s Boards or Commissions? Vacancies currently exist on the following. If you are interested, please visit this website for more information.

For more information:

To apply, please complete this form:

  • Board of Adjustment – One Vacancy
  • Housing Appeals Board – One Vacancy
  • Planning Commission – One Vacancy
  • Raleigh Transit Authority – One Alternate Member Vacancy
  • Stormwater Management Advisory Commission – One Vacancy
  • Arts Commission – One Vacancy
  • Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Commission – Two vacancies
  • Raleigh Convention and Performing Arts Centers Authority
  • Environmental Advisory Board – Three Vacancies
  • Human Relations Commission – Three vacancies
  • Substance Abuse Advisory Commission – One Vacancy