HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/1996, 2 - SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCILA AGENDA REPORT FOR THE CHORRO AREA TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN '"EETING AGENDA
city of San tins OBISPO �� a0 6 rrEm # c:2-
1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FOR
THE CHORRO AREA TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
February 20, 1996
L REPORT IN BRIEF
IL DISCUSSION
A. Background
Getting Direction from the Council
Developing a Work Program
Surveying Area Households and Holding the First Workshop
Designing the Plan
Holding a Second Workshop and Asking for Neighborhood Response to the Draft Plan
Other Neighborhood Input
Complying With Environmental Requirements
Surveying Pre-Project Traffic Conditions
B. Evaluation
Achieving Speed Reduction Goals
Achieving Reductions in Traffic Volumes
Phasing the Installation of Facilities and Monitoring
Monitoring Traffic Redistributions
Disposition of the Chorro Street Speed Table
Impact of Facilities on Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Issues Not Addressed by the Plan
The Montalban Street Bridge Project
Consultation With Caltrans and North Coastal Access
Changes to Streets Outside the Neighborhood Area
III. CONCURRENCES
A. Fire Department Comments
B. Police Department Response
IV. FISCAL IMPACTS
A. Maintenance Issues
B. Installation cost
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Install Stop Signs Only
B. Install Road Humps and Traffic Circles Only
C. Greater Reliance on Traffic Circles
D. Partial Street Closures With Fewer Road Humps
E. Full closure of Selected Streets
F. Use of Alternate Traffic Calming Devices
G. Revise Traffic Volume Standards for Chorro, Meinecke and Murray Streets
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A: Final Draft of the Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan (January, 1996)
EXHIBIT B: Traffic Calming Plan Work Program and Schedule (August, 1995)
EXHIBIT C: Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (Boulder, Colorado, 1995)
EXHIBIT D: Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration
EXHIBIT E: Baseline Traffic/Noise Conditions within the Chorro Street Area
EXHIBIT F. Council Resolution Adopting the Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan
�������►�i��ll►►IIIII IIIIIIIty o f San LUIS OBISpo ME
c� Q a�T qo
I►► �
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT STEM UM
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works DirectoAPP"t'
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: Approval of a plan to manage traffic in the Chorro Street Area.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution supporting the mitigated negative declaration
issued by the Community Development Director and approving the
L REPORT IN BRIEF Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan with incorporated mitigation.
Last August, the City Council told staff to help the Chorro Street area residents prepare a plan for
managing traffic in their neighborhood. Council asked that the planning effort be complete by January
1, 1996. In September, neighborhood residents were sent questionnaire asking them to identify major
traffic problems. The response to the questionnaire identified speeding vehicles, too many cars and
pedestrian and bicycling safety as the key concerns. The response to the questionnaire was consistent
with comments made by residents that attended a workshop held at the City-County Library on
September 6, 1995.
Area residents formed a committee that met weekly throughout September and October to prepare a draft
plan. The draft plan was published in mid-October and households directly effected by the installation
of traffic calming facilities were canvased. A copy of the draft plan was mailed to all area households
and was reviewed at a workshop on November 1, 1995. At this second workshop various concerns with
the plan was expressed. Throughout November and early December, interested residents met on three
separate occasions to talk about the issues raised at the workshop and to modify the draft plan. Concerns
raised by people living on Lincoln Avenue, Meinecke and Murray Streets and Broad Street, and tenants
and the owner of the Ferrini Square Shopping Center on Foothill Boulevard were addressed by changing
ing
the draft plan.
i
The final draft of the plan (attached as Exhibit A) recommends that road humps, stop signs and traffic
circles be installed throughout the area to slow traffic and encourage motorists to use alternative routes.
Changes would be made to the Chorro-Lincoln intersection and the southbound approach to the Chorro-
Foothill intersection to make it less convenient for through traffic to enter the neighborhood. Also, the
timing of the traffic signal at the Chorro-Foothill intersection would be changed to give greater
preference to traffic on Foothill Boulevard. The recommended traffic calming facilities would be
installed in phases over a one year period.
IL DISCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND
Getting Direction from the Council. In August, 1995 the City Council directed staff to help residents
of the Chorro Street area to prepare a neighborhood traffic management plan. The Council set January
1, 1996 as the deadline for completing the plan and scheduling a public hearing for the Council to
consider adopting the plan. (Note: on behalf of the neighborhood group, the Public Works staff
do?-�
city of San lues 081sp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
submitted the final draft plan to the Community Development Department for environmental review on
January, 4, 1996.)
Developing a Wmic Pmgram. In August, 1995, the Public Works Staff and area residents met to talk
about how the plan was to be prepared. The group developed a work program and schedule (attached
as Exhibit B) and decided who was to do what. The group agreed that the study area boundaries
identified by DKS Associates in 1988 were still appropriate. (In the latter stages of the plan's
development, the study area was expanded to include the Peach-Chorro intersection.)
Surveying Area Households and Holding The First Workshop. A neighborhood workshop was held on
September 6, 1995 in the Community Room at the City-County library. About 30 people attended the
meeting and discussed various concerns with traffic in the neighborhood. As part of the notice for this
workshop, a questionnaire was distributed that asked residents and property owners to define traffic
problems and identify possible solutions. Five hundred survey forms were distributed and 70 were
returned (a 14% response). A synopsis of the survey response is presented on the following page.
The surey results indicate that the top three traffic problems identified by area residents based on
composite average scoring are: (1) speeding vehicles; (2) too many cars; and (3) pedestrian and bicycle
safety. As noted on the following page, all problems received a composite rating somewhere between
"minor" and "major" concern category. In general, the survey response was consistent with previous
surveys conducted by area residents and by DKS Associates in 1988.
Staff did not attempt to cross tabulate the survey responses by "origin" of response. We did note in
reviewing the responses that some problems -- such as problems with existing driveways -- were more
of a concern for Chorro Street residents than for households along other streets. We also noted from
the response that some households with a long tenure in the neighborhood expressed less of a concern
with traffic than others. Of the solutions offered by the people responding to the survey, the installation
of road humps received the greatest response (22 people or 32% of respondents) followed by the
installation of stop signs at key intersections (17 people or 25% of respondents). Although tabulations
of other solutions were not done, closure of the highway ramps at Route 101 and Broad Street was
mentioned several times.
Designing the Plan. Beginning in September, 1995, a traffic calming design committee met each week
to assemble the plan. The City's transportation planner provided technical support. Many different
design solutions were discussed including the use of a variety of traffic calming devices (see Exhibit C
produced by Boulder Colorado) and the concept of partially or totally closing one or more street. It was
the consensus of the design committee that a plan presented to the City Council must try and achieve
the traffic management standards identified in the Circulation Element -- reduction in traffic speed and
traffic volumes — and respond to the neighborhood survey results. The committee also wanted to ensure
that the plan. provided opportunities for neighborhood beautification and that it be implemented within
the City's budget limits (see Fiscal Impact section of this report for details).
a- 3
�.:...
tn
`aU
00
kn
a�
N M to ON in
W
W ;.
E
e 11
CN
40
c
l^ y
00 � � V1 in 00
F: :'
0: N
Q <s':w.'r,' ' a
U
N N M tt M ell
CD E
co N
WOJ T �
> E
y y y y
ca
y0 LV
Gn Q
12)
rn
g d ti U V
ed
s o
� a o URI OZ
0 m
CIO
w2-A1
���h�� ►►�I►III(IIIp° �II�II city of San tUIS OBISpo
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Holding a Second Wodtshop and Asking for Neighborhood Response to the Draft Plan. A draft of the
plan was mailed to area households and businesses on October 20, 1995 and a public meeting was held
on November 1, 1995 in the City Council Chambers. As part of the meeting notice (which included a
legal advertisement in the Telegram Tribune), each household was asked to respond to a short
questionnaire prepared by the design group.
While households appeared to be able to respond to the first question (response summarized below), they
were unable to respond clearly to other "fill-in-the-blank" questions. Staff attempted to organize the
response to the remaining questions but was unsuccessful. Many respondents ignored the questions being
asked and used the space to express their own concerns and ideas for solving them. Interested Council
members may review the questionnaires available in the Council office.
CHORRO STREET AREA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY RESPONSE (October 1995)
Suitvey Question #T Yes' No. Not Sum No Answer Total
Do you support implementing a 45 (62%) 20 (27%) 3 (4%) 5 (7%) 73
plan like the one we've proposed? (100%)
The respondents appeared to support efforts to slow traffic speeds and reduce traffic levels within their
neighborhood. But there was a range of opinions on exactly how to do this.
Before the November 1 st meeting, a number of area residents canvased the neighborhood and talked with
people who lived close to proposed locations of road hump and stop signs. The purpose of this contact
was to let people know what was being proposed and why and to solicit their individual responses.
Also, a member of the design committee met with City Fire Department staff to solicit comments on the
plan's effect on emergency access.
About 50 people attended the November 1, 1995 workshop and talked about the draft plan. Key
concerns raised at the neighborhood meeting are shown on the table on the following page. After the
workshop, design committee members contacted people from Lincoln Avenue, Broad Street and
Meinecke and Murray Avenues and asked them to participate in revising the draft plan to address their
concerns. People who lived on these streets were asked to contact their neighbors and come up with a
specific ideas. These ideas were reviewed at three neighborhood meetings and incorporated into the
final draft of the traffic plan. Some of the most significant changes made to the plan as a result of these
sessions include the following:
O Some of the road humps on Chorro Street were eliminated or relocated. In general, road humps
are proposed in front of households that did not object to their installation.
❑ The proposal to eliminate the northbound left turn lane on Chorro Street at Foothill Boulevard
was deleted in response to the concerns raised by the owner of Ferrini Square and its tenants.
❑ A traffic circle was added at the Rougeot-Chorro intersection as an "entry feature" for the
neighborhood.
������i�II�IIIIIfI�II III�III city of San 1,.-6 OBISPO
WWWA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Index. # Desuipiion of Concems Raised at November:.l, 1995 Wo>drsho
P
I A resident of Patricia Drive said that people who live on Chorro Street should learn to live
with existing traffic conditions. No matter what the plan proposes, he will continue to use
Chorro Street.
2 The City needs to consider long range solutions to north city traffic concerns. The
Highway 1 bypass project should be encouraged (mentioned twice).
3 The timing of the traffic signals on Santa Rosa Street should be looked at to make it a more
convenient route (mentioned twice).
4 The installation of traffic circles is a better solution for slowing traffic than speed humps
(mentioned twice).
5 The speed humps on Murray Street are not at the best location. Motorists already slow
down at the designated location because of a drainage dip.
6 The plan needs to address the concerns of residents along Lincoln Avenue, east of Chorro.
7 Meinecke Street may need more speed humps to divert traffic. What about a partial closure
of the street?
8 The plans should include more speed humps on Broad Street. The installation of traffic
calming facilities on Chorro Street may encourage more people to use Broad. Broad should
be treated in a similar fashion as Chorro Street (mentioned 3 times).
9 Reduction of speed is the most important objective. People shouldn't object to driving 25
mph on Chorro Street.
10 The installation of stop signs causes pollution. Use the money instead for additional
enforcement of the speed limit.
11 Eliminating the northbound left turn pockets on Chorro Street at Foothill Boulevard will
make access to Ferrini Square more difficult and adversely affect businesses. Chorro Street
is a main access route to these businesses. (Mentioned 3 times.) (Staff has also been
contacted by a businessman on the north side of Foothill Boulevard that objects to efforts to
reduce access to the north city areas via Chorro Street and the potential impact on retail
sales levels.)
12 Shorting the northbound left turn pocket on Chorro Street at Lincoln may cause traffic to
back up through the Walnut-Chorro intersection.
13 Concerned about the safety of pedestrians. Motorists already run the stop signs on Broad
Street and the same thing could happen at the new stop-controlled intersections on Chorro
Street.
The City should evaluate the feasibility of installing electronic surveillance systems on
14 Chorro Street. People who are speeding would be automatically sent a citation in the mail.
This is done in other communities.
15 Lack of sidewalks on Chorro Street at specific locations creates safety problems for
pedestrians.
a-G
������►��i�llllllllll°�'�9�11111 city of San tins OBlspo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
❑. Four road humps (of less-aggressive design) were added to Broad Street south of Mission Street
and a traffic circle proposed at the Mt. View-Broad intersection.
❑ Additional road humps are proposed for Murray Street to discourage speeding and cut-through
traffic.
❑ A traffic circle is planned for the Benton Way-Meinecke Street intersection.
❑ Monitoring and mitigation provisions were included in the plan to address the concerns of
Lincoln Avenue residents and other households fronting local streets in the area.
Other Neighborhood Input. At its October 17, 1995 meeting, the City Council received a petition from
residents of Lincoln Avenue and cross streets, east of Chorro Street. The petition expressed a concern
that traffic calming devices installed on Chorro Street might increase traffic on Lincoln Avenue which
is a local street. The petition recommended that traffic levels be monitored before and after the
implementation of the proposed plan and that if levels increased 10% or more then the traffic calming
facilities be removed from Chorro Street. This particular issue has been addressed in the revised draft
of the plan submitted to the City Council --: Phase IV of the Plans stipulates the following:
Adjust facilities as appropriate and correct all undesirable traffic redistributions.
The neighborhood group also received a letter from Ms. Alma Shisler indicating that the executive board
of The Village Residents Association supported the draft plan to improve the traffic situation in the
Chorro Street neighborhood.
Complying With Environmental Requirements. The revised plan was submitted to the Community
Development Department on January 4, 1996 for purposes of complying with the environmental review
process. The Department prepared an initial environmental study (Exhibit D) and issued a mitigated
negative declaration which was advertised in the Telegram-Tribune newspaper on January 27, 1996. The
mitigated negative declaration requires the following mitigation measure be included in the plan as part
the plan:
Estimate the cost of maintaining the proposed permanent traffic calming facilities, evaluate
funding options, and establish a strategy for paying for long-term maintenance (Phase IV).
The Fire Department will review the effects of the proposed traffic calming facilities on fire
service and vehicle maintenance during Phases II and IV of the plan's implementation.
Corrective action will be taken to address these concerns, as needed.
Surveying 'Pm-Project"Traffic Conditions. Beginning in late October and extending into the first week
in December, City staff surveyed traffic conditions in the planning area and on Santa Rosa Street. The
purpose of this analysis was to document "pre-project" traffic conditions and allow the City to determine
the effect of installing traffic calming facilities. Traffic speeds, volumes and vehicle classification was
surveyed at 13 locations within the planning area including a count location on Santa Rosa Street. The
survey also included some baseline noise readings at locations of proposed stop signs or speed humps
C2_7
��►� � ►�Illlllll�n�ui►��UIII city of San L-AS OBispo'
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
see bxhiDit h). The results of the field surveys are consistent with analysis done by DKS Associates
in 1988 and show the following:
❑ Daily traffic volumes on Chorro Street range from 7,400 vehicles south of Foothill Boulevard to
10,200 vehicles north of Lincoln Street. Traffic speeds (85th percentile) range from 29 to 36
mph. (Circulation Element standard call for traffic volumes not to exceed 5,000 vehicles per day
with traffic speeds not to exceed 25 mph.)
❑ Daily traffic volumes on Meinecke and Murray Streets range from 1,800 to 2,100 vehicles and
1,900 to 2,000 vehicles, respectively. Traffic speeds range from 17 to 31 mph, and . 29 to 31
mph, respectively. The slow traffic speed on Meinecke is in the block that includes a private
elementary school where a significant portion of the traffic is slowing to drop off and pick up
students. (Circulation Element standards call for traffic volumes not to exceed 1,500 vehicles per
day with traffic speeds not to exceed 25 mph.).
❑ Daily traffic volumes on Broad Street south of Mission Street range from 2,200 to 2,400 vehicles.
Traffic speeds range from 25 mph (segments with speed humps) to 32 mph. (Circulation
Element standards call for traffic volumes not to exceed 3,000 vehicles per day with traffic
speeds not to exceed 25 mph.)
❑ Daily traffic volumes on Lincoln Avenue east of Chorro Street are 300 vehicles with an 85th
percentile speed of 30 mph. (Circulation Element standards call for traffic volumes not to
exceed 1,500 vehicles per day with traffic speeds not to exceed 25 mph.)
In sum, the initial survey results show that Chorro, Meinecke and Murray Streets have excessive traffic
volumes and speeds while Broad Street south of Mission has excessive speeds. Traffic speeds on
Lincoln Avenue east of Chorro Street exceed Circulation Element standards but traffic levels are light -
- only about 20% of the Element's standard for maximum traffic volume.
B. EVALUATION
1. Achieving Speed Reduction Goals. The Circulation Element says that the 85th percentile traffic
speed on streets within the planning area should not exceed 25 mph. The draft plan recommends that
road humps and traffic circles be installed along Chorro, Broad, Murray and Meinecke Streets to slow
traffic. The design committee reviewed information from a number of communities that document the
effectiveness of these facilities. Communities such as Bolder Colorado, Portland Oregon, Seattle
Washington, and San Diego California have well-established programs and have conducted a significant
amount of"before and after" research. Research published by the Institute of Transportation Studies at
the University of California,Berkeley and in the September, 1995 edition of the ITE Journal also proved
very helpful.
Research shows that the installation of road humps are effective in achieving 85th percentile speeds of
25 mph. The design committee recommends that the "kinder and gentler" road humps be installed that
are 12 foot long and 2 5/8 inches high. This type of road hump is effective in slowing vehicles to 25
mph but is not as jarring as the type currently installed on Broad Street south of Foothill Boulevard.
They also create less noise and have less of an effect on large vehicles such as fire trucks.
d'
����►►��i► IIIIIIII�P� ►�UIII My of San LuIs osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The plan recommends that nine road humps be installed on Chorro Street, four humps on Broad Street
south of Mission, and three humps on Murray Street (reference Exhibit A). Where new stop signs are
proposed by the plan at Center and Mission Streets, road humps would be installed at the approaches
to the intersections to promote more gradual vehicle breaking and acceleration. The design committee
felt that this strategy could help reduce the concern for excessive noise at intersections were stop signs
are proposed.
The plan also recommends (Phase III) that 25 mph speed limit signs be installed. These signs would
be installed only after traffic speeds are surveyed (Phase II) and 85th percentile speeds are determined
to be close to the 25 mph level. The installation of speed limit signs will comply with all State Vehicle
Code provisions for the posting of speed limits. However, 25 mph is considered the base speed limit
on all streets unless posted otherwise. Therefore, it is fairly rare to actually post 25 mph speed limit
signs.
At the intersection of Mountain View Street with Broad and Chorro Streets, at the Chorro-Rougeot
intersection and at the Benten-Meinecke intersection, the installation of traffic circles is recommended.
A traffic circle requires motorists to divert from their straight-line progress through an intersection and
consequently requires them to slow down. Hundreds of traffic circles have been installed in Seattle
Washington and are popular throughout Europe. A sketch of a typical traffic circle published in the ITE
Journal (September 1995) is shown below.
I
FC^N•1V.6UNTABL E MOUN'i ABBE
CURB 8 GUTTER
O CVR9 B GUT7"R
�
yy• f� 1i�a
EL ,
�+ YIN r SELL 06 OR
C
� SJ MULCH
f
Il '
Figure 1: Typical Traffic Circle Design
off'
11111JI1�111lll���1°u��IUlll MY of San _AS OBISpo
fififflWININgni COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The plan recommends that traffic circles be initially installed as temporary facilities using paint, pylons
and maybe tires painted white. After their effectiveness has been tested and after a five month period,
the plastic pylons and paint would be replaced with asphalt berms and interim landscaping. The traffic
circle at the Reogeot-Chorro intersection is also intended as a landscaped entry feature into the
neighborhood for southbound motorists. These "interim" facilities would be replaced with permanent
facilities. However, timing vs. funding of permanent facilities could become a key issue since the City's
1995-97 Financial Plan earmarks$200,000 for the installation of permanent facilities throughout San Luis
Obispo, beginning in FY 1997-98, ie. the earliest date to install permanent facilities being July 1, 1997.
2. Achieving Reductions in Traffic Volumes. Research in the United States indicates that road
humps alone (especially the "kinder and gentler" type) will not reduce traffic levels or cause motorists
to select an alternate route to the extent desired by the neighborhood residents. To pursue traffic
reduction goals, the plan proposes that stop signs be installed at three additional intersections -- at the
Misssion-Chorro, Center-Chorro and Peach-Chorro intersections. The committee felt that installing stop
signs at the Peach-Chorro intersection would encourage people to select alternative routes before they
entered the neighborhood and improve the safety of motorists and bicyclists using this intersection. In
past years the City's Bicycle Committee supported the installation of stop signs on Chorro Street at
Peach.
Research in other communities show that such a combination of facilities may reduce traffic volumes
by 5 to 25% depending on the attractiveness of alternate routes. Surveys done in other states (eg.
Florida) indicate that a significant number of transportation agencies consider stop signs as a method for
reducing traffic volumes. In general, the City should expect motorists passing through the neighborhood
to object to the installation of stop signs because it makes Chorro Street a less attractive route. However,
discouraging through traffic is one of the objectives of this neighborhood plan -- a good example of how
a traffic calming plan cannot satisfy all transportation interests.
The design committee evaluated a variety of schemes for further reducing traffic in the neighborhood
to achieve Circulation Element standards. Partially or totally closing streets or closing streets during
peak traffic periods was considered but was felt to be too drastic a step to take at this time because of
potential complaints from motorists living outside the neighborhood and potential traffic "redistribution"
problems within the neighborhood. (For example, the neighborhood group talked about closing
Meinecke Street west of Chorro Street to through traffic but did not pursue. the idea because it might
cause more traffic to use Murray Street to the south.) However, the group felt that there needs to be
some method for further discouraging people from entering the area and encouraging the use of other
routes. The plan recommends that:
❑ The northbound left tum pocket on Chorro Street at the Lincoln Street intersection be shortened
to accommodate about three cars. A median would be created where the long tum pocket
currently exists while maintaining access to adjoining land uses. Initially the median would be
defined by pylons and pavement striping, but eventually would be replaced with curbs and
landscaping. An "entry feature" would be installed in the median island which would include
a speed limit sign for 25 mph.
,2—/0
��►�n�i i��IIIII�IP�° ���lll city of San LAIS OBISpo'
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
❑ The southbound left tum pocket on Chorro Street at the Foothill Boulevard intersection would
be eliminated. The area could be used as a refuge island for pedestrians crossing Chorro Street
Foothill, although on a street of this width a refuge island is not necessary.. This change is
designed to discourage southbound motorists coming from Cal Poly to select north Chorro Street
rather than Santa Rosa Street as a route to the downtown.
❑ The timing of the traffic single at the Foothill-Chorro Street intersection would be changed to
give greater preference(green time)to Foothill Boulevard traffic. The green cycle for cross street
traffic (eg. Chorro Street) would not be extended.
❑ Signs would be installed on Chorro Street (south of Walnut) and on Foothill Boulevard (west of
Chorro) to advise through traffic to use Santa Rosa Street as an alternate route.
These changes purposefully create short-term congestion at the entries to the Chorro Street Area and are
meant to encourage motorists to select alternate routes. Increasing the green time for Foothill Boulevard
traffic will increase the traffic ques on the side streets. The side street green intervals would not be
extended to compensate for these ques which would create additional delays. Purposefully creating
traffic delays is in conflict with traditional traffic engineering practice — which is to mitigate congestion
at all locations. However, engineers have long know that increases in travel time can cause people to
select alternate routes -- which is a goal of the Chorro Area Plan. The design committee felt that using
congestion as a traffic management tool is less drastic than partially or fully closing streets to achieve
this goal.
The effectiveness of this strategy is unknown and will be monitored as defined in the plan. The design
committee felt that these changes would be self policing and eventually motorists would avoid congested
segments of Chorro Street during peak traffic periods and select alternate routes. During non-peak
periods, traffic delays are not anticipated.
To what extent the timing of traffic signals on Foothill Boulevard should be changed is unknown at this
time and will require further analysis. Since the Foothill-Santa Rosa Street intersection is controlled
by Caltrans and gives preference to Route 1 traffic, increasing the green time at other signalized
intersections on Foothill Boulevard could result in longer ques on Foothill at Route 1. Longer ques
could discourage motorists from using Santa Rosa Street as a downtown connecting route — which is
an objective that the draft plan. Further study will be needed to determine how signal timing might be
changed and whether Caltrans will approve such changes.
The draft plan recommends that the timing of traffic signals on Santa Rosa from Walnut Street to Pismo
Street should be better synchronized to encourage motorists to use Santa Rosa Street (Phase I
implementation). It was the observations of the design committee that:
❑ Traffic signals on Santa Rosa controlled by Caltrans(Highland Drive to Walnut Street)performed
reasonably well in providing for the free flow of traffic; but
❑ The City-controlled intersections on Santa Rosa Street into and through the downtown were less
efficient in fostering the use of Santa Rosa Street.
������►�i��lllllllllp° II�III city of San .-AIS OBISpo
W=111 1111,111110 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
To date, staff has not evaluated the potential for improving traffic signal timing for City-controlled
intersections on Santa Rosa Street. It will require an analysis of cross traffic volumes, current flow
characteristics, and effects of delay to determine whether timing changes are feasible. The potential
for improving Santa Rosa Street traffic flow is unknown at this point.
3. Phasing The Installation of Facilities and Monitoring. The design committee wanted a plan that
can be implemented in a short period of time and demonstrate from the onset that the City wants to
achieve Circulation Element goals for this neighborhood. At the same time, the group felt that the
community needs some time to adjust to the changing function of Chorro Street from a connecting route
to the downtown to a residential collector street, consistent with the objectives of the Circulation
Element. Therefore, the plan includes provisions for phasing the installation of traffic calming facilities.
The plan would be fully implemented in five (5) phases. By adopting the plan, the City Council commit
to the implementation of all phases. The implementation of any individual phase in not contingent upon
the performance of a preceding phase. The purpose of monitoring throughout the implementation period
is to allow for adjustments to the design of traffic calming facilities and the mitigation of unanticipated
traffic conditions.
"Interim" facilities are scheduled for installation over a 7- to 12-month period with speed humps and
traffic circles being installed first and followed by stop signs. The design committee is convinced that
all facilities must be in place to achieve traffic management objectives. At various times during the
plan's implementation, the City staff will survey traffic conditions at spot locations to determine the
impact of the traffic calming facilities and enable adjustments to their design.
4. Monitoring Traffic Redistribution. At the outset, the design committee did not know the effect
of the proposed traffic calming facilities on the redistribution of traffic. They felt that gauging traffic
diversion was too speculative at this time and that the tools and studies needed to forecast these changes
are too complex, time consuming and costly. Therefore, the committee felt that a "monitoring and
mitigation" strategy is the most appropriate way of addressing traffic redistribution.
Phase II, IV and V of the plan suggests such a monitoring program. Traffic conditions would be
surveyed as part of Phase IV and survey results presented to the City Council along with any remedial
actions recommended by the design committee to address inappropriate traffic distribution problems.
The overall goal would be to maintain standards set by the Circulation Element. Remedial actions could
include partial or full closure of streets, the modification or removal of existing traffic calming facilities
or the installation of additional facilities. The Council could also decide to take no further action.
5. Disposition of the Chorro Sheet Speed Table. In August, the City Council also asked staff to
report by December 1, 1995 on recommended changes to the design of the speed table at the Chorro-
Mission intersection. Since the draft plan recommends that the speed table be removed, no separate
Council report was prepared. However, the plastic pylons that extended along Mission Street were
removed in September, 1995 to reduce visual impacts that was of concern to individual residents in the
area.
o�—/L
���h�i�ni�llllllllll ���pll city of san lots OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The draft plan recommends that the remainder of the plastic pylons be removed as part of Phase I
implementation -- which should satisfy remaining concerns for visual impacts. The speed table itself
and the ladder crosswalk would be retained until a stop sign is installed at the Mission Street intersection
as part of Phase II. This interim strategy is recommended to provide for greater pedestrian visibility
prior to the installation of stop signs and a new at-grade crosswalk.
6. Impact of Facilities on Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. On balance, the plan should have a
positive effect on bicycle and pedestrian safety. Bicyclists should benefit since reduced traffic speeds
will allow a more comfortable sharing of the roadway with motor vehicles. For example, downhill
speeds of bicyclists on Chorro Street should be within 5 to 7 mph of motor vehicle speeds. Since travel
lanes are not being narrowed and proposed speed humps use a less aggressive design (a 2 5/8" high
compared to a 3- or 4-inch height), no adverse effects are anticipated. Research in other cities shows
the following:
❑ Research done in Berkely, California shows no documented adverse effects on bicycling after
road humps were installed.
❑ Since 1988, the City of Palo Alto, California has installed 3-inch high humps that do not impede
or pose a hazard to bicycle travel.
❑ A Bicycle Plan being prepared for the City of San Francisco suggests that 3-inch and 4-inch
humps are likely to be safe for bicyclists, although the 4-inch hump should be used with caution
where bicycle traffic is frequent or rapid. Also, road humps should not be installed on steep hills
that are bike routes.
❑ The City of Oakland will only install road humps when street grades are 5% or less.
While short segments of Chorro Street are steeper than 5%, the modest design of the proposed road
humps (2 5/8" height) and the overall grade of the corridor suggests that safety will not be impacted.
Additional stop signs on Chorro Street will provide greater gaps in the traffic stream and opportunities
for pedestrians to cross at a stop-controlled intersection. However, with limited cross traffic at the
Mission Street and Center Street intersections, pedestrians will need to be careful of motorists and
bicyclists that do not make complete stops. One of the main reasons that traffic engineers do not
recommend stop signs at "non-warranted" intersections is the tendency of motorists and bicyclists to roll
through or ignore the signing. The installation of limit lines and crosswalks at stop controlled
intersections can help mitigate this problem by clearly highlighting the pedestrian crossing zone.
The draft plan recommends that the "ladder style" crosswalk at the Murray-Chorro intersection be
retained and that additional cross walks be installed on cross streets where traffic circles are proposed.
Staff recommends that they also be installed on Chorro Street at Mission and Center Streets. The
Mission-Chorro intersection is probably the most important one to strip because it provides pedestrian
access to Anholm Park. A ladder style crosswalk already exists at that location.
a i3
����N�i�►►�Iflllllll►►° 9�lll city of san L_ s OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Ladder style crosswalks are widely used in Germany, Great Britain and the Netherlands and are gaining
use in the United States. In San Luis Obispo, this type of crosswalk has been installed at three locations:
at the Chorro-Murray and Chorro-Mission Street intersections and at Sinsheimer School on Augusta
Street. U.S. studies have show that ladder style crosswalks are more effective in providing advance
warning for motorists and they improve the channelization of pedestrians at intersections. The draft plan
recommends that they be installed on the cross streets where traffic circles are proposed to better
channelized pedestrians away from vehicle travel lanes on the through route.
8. Issues Not Addressed by the Plan.
The Montalban Street Bridge. At the September 6, 1995 neighborhood workshop a resident who lives
on Montalban Street adjoining Stenner Creek complained about the proposed installation of a pedestrian-
bicycle bridge at that location. The Planning Commission and City Council received similar testimony
during its hearings to determine the consistency of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with the
General Plan. The City Council required that a public meeting be held before the Council to enable
public input. However, the bridge was identified as the City Council's preferred solution during the
City's transportation unmet needs hearing since it provides neighborhood access to alternate transportation
(transit routes on Santa Rosa Street and bicycle routes). The design committee felt that concerns for this
project was not central to the mission of the traffic management plan for the Chorro Street area and
should not be addressed by the plan.
Consultation With Caltrans and North Coastal Access. The committee also did not involve Caltams in
the development of the plan since the traffic diversion impacts on Santa Rosa Street (State Route 1)
traffic and congestion levels are largely unknown. However, as part of Phase IV of the plan, traffic on
Santa Rosa Street will again be surveyed to see if traffic congestion has increase to levels that exceed
standards set by the Circulation Element. Remedial actions will be identified at that time, as necessary.
Also, SLOCOG is scheduled to begin the North Coastal Access Study in FY 1997-98. This study is
called for by the City's Circulation Element (Program 8.14 on page 25) and is intended to identify the
traffic needs of regional corridors that serve east-west traffic between San Luis Obispo and the coast.
Funding for this study would be divided between the City, County and SLOCOG with the City's share
roughly estimated at $50,000. The design committee also felt that trying to address this region-wide
circulation issue could threaten the timely implementation of the proposed traffic management plan since
the debate concerning north coastal access has extended over a 25-year period.
Changes to Streets Outside the Neighborhood Area. While the design committee discussed changes to
streets outside the planning area, it decided not to include specific recommendations in the plan itself.
Rather, the design committee and neighborhood group focused on what could be immediately changed
in their area to achieve Circulation Element standards. Resolution of some of the broader traffic
distribution issues that could benefit the Chorro area could take a long time and involve numerous
agencies. The neighborhood did not want this type of evaluation to delay implementation of a plan for
the Chorro neighborhood. Some of the ideas for changing streets outside the area include the following:
����i ►►�Nlllllfll�°�9nllll MY of san L.,4IS OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
❑ Changing the traffic signal timing at the Los Osos Valley Road - Foothill Boulevard intersection.
The green time for traffic turning left onto Foothill Boulevard would be reduced while the green
time for southbound LOVR traffic would be increased.
❑ Changing the intersection of North Chorro Street with Highland Drive to discourage or preclude
the use of the street as a connector between Cal Poly and the downtown.
❑ Reserve the eastbound lane on Foothill Boulevard at Santa Rosa Street for right-tuming vehicles
only.
❑ Closing one or both of the ramps to Route 101 at Broad Street on the north side of the freeway
to discourage the use of neighborhood streets for freeway access..
The committee also did not address the issue of installing additional sidewalks in the neighborhood since
it was tangential to the primary concern for excessive traffic levels and speeds. However, the committee
seemed supportive of independent action to proceed with additional sidewalk installations.
1I. CONCURRENCES
The draft plan was forwarded to the Police and Fire Departments for comment.
1. Fire Service Response Chorro Street is used as an emergency response route into the
neighborhood from Fire Station #2 located on Chorro Street north of Foothill Boulevard. Chorro Street
is also an emergency access route for back up fire service from the downtown Headquarters Fire Station.
Chorro Street is also used by fire vehicles traveling to Station #2 to use the training facilities. However,
with the training facilities being relocated to the new headquarters fire station on Santa Barbara Street,
this traffic should be reduced.
In general, the traffic calming facilities proposed by the plan will slow emergency response to the
southern part of Station #2 response area. Although no field studies have been done, the Fire Chief does
not expect that implementation of the plan will result in areas being beyond a four-minute response from
Station #2 or the new headquarters station.
Fire Chief Neumann has indicated that implementation of Phase I of the plan does not create service
response concerns. However, the Chief expressed some concerns about(1) the effects of the road humps
on long-term maintenance of fire trucks, and (2) the effects of the proposed stop signs in slowing
emergency response -- although City response standards (four-minute response to all urban areas) should
not be exceeded. Chief Neumann indicated a desire to have the opportunity to review and monitor the
incremental implementation of the plan to ensure that fire service and maintenance issues are addressed
(see recommended mitigation/monitoring measure). The Chief is willing to take a "wait and see"
attitude concerning the plan's impacts.
The issues raised by Chief Neumann were addressed as part of the plan's environmental evaluation. The
following mitigation measure is required as part of the'plan's adoption:
c2—lsoo�
�ufl�i�►►►�IIIII�IIPiq���U city of san L_ s osispo
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The Fire Depanment will review the effects of the proposed traffic calming facilities on fire
service and vehicle maintenance during Phases II and IV of the plan's implementation.
Corrective action will be taken to address these concerns, as needed.
2. Police Department Response
The Police Department is concerned that implementation of the plan will have a negative impact on
response times for emergency vehicles both into and through the area. The Police are also concerned
that the potential diversion of traffic to Santa Rosa Street will reduce response time using that corridor.
The Police suggest that an independent traffic study be conducted.
In response to this concern, a representative of the design committee acknowledged some reduction in
police response time but noted that traffic calming devices can reduce vehicle code violations in the area
(speeding vehicles) and that Chorro Street does not appear to be frequently used by the police vehicles
as a response route.
While a traffic study can provide estimates of traffic diversion (although estimating diversion is highly
speculative since no roadways are being closed) and provide greater analysis of level of service
conditions on Santa Rosa Street, the cost of the study would be comparable to- if not greater than the
cost of monitoring and remedial actions as recommended by the draft plan -- with similar results.
IV. FISCAL IMPACTS
A. MAINTENANCE ISSUES
Maintenance of the 16 road humps should be minimal and involve periodic repainting of pavement
markings. Properly-located stop signs are also low-maintenance items. The "entry islands" south of
the Lincoln-Chorro intersection and the proposed traffic circles will initially be defined by pavement
markings and plastic pylons. The use of plastic pylons have been criticized by area residents when the
City installed the speed table at Mission Street. The plan proposes that the pylons be replaced by asphalt
curbing and interim landscaping within five months of their initial installation (see Phase II of the plan).
The pylons are intended as short-term temporary measures to determine if the basic facility functions as
planned.
Interim landscaping would involve planter pots or boxes with low scale landscaping. While area
residents could be asked to maintain interim and permanent landscaping, given its location in the center
of the street, staff does not recommend it for safety and liability reasons. However, staff can evaluate
alternate means (including assessment districts) for funding long-term maintenance. The plan's initial
environmental study required that the following mitigation measure be incorporated into the plan:
Estimate the cost of maintaining the proposed permanent traffic calming facilities, evaluate
funding options, and establish a strategy for paying for long-term maintenance (Phase IV).
At this point, staff assumes that City crews/contracted services will be responsible for maintaining
interim and permanent landscaping. The cost to the City will depend on the final design of the entry
����N�i�►t►�IIIII111NI►'�u�►���111 CRY Of san luf s OBISPO
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
island and the traffic circles and the landscape materials used. City staff estimates that contract
landscapers will charge $75-$100 per month to maintain the traffic circles and entry islands.
B. INSTALLATION COST
Rough cost estimates for contractor installation of facilities are provided below. Funding for interim
facilities has been provided for by the 1995-97 Financial Plan. Pages 82 and 83 of Appendix B indicates
that $50,000 was set aside for consultant services during FY 1995-96 and $80,000 for constructing
interim facilities during FY 1996-97.
In August, 1995, the City Council decided that consultant services were not warranted and that the
neighborhood group should prepare the plan will staff support. The neighborhood group also felt that
money earmarked for consultants would be better spent on actually implementing a traffic management
plan. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, staff assumes that at least $80,000 would be available for the
design and installation of interim facilities with $50,000 (previously earmarked for consultant services)
being available during FY 1996-97 with additional funding available during the following fiscal year.
During FY 1997-98 the adopted Financial Plan earmarks $200,000 for installing permanent facilities.
In the case of the Chorro Area Plan, permanent facilities would include permanent curbs, water service,
entry signage and landscaping in the entry island south of Lincoln Street and the traffic circles. No cost
estimates for designing and installing permanent facilities have been prepared to date.
The cost of installing interim facilities is presented on the following page. The table identifies road
humps and stops signs as interim facilities. If monitoring shows that these facilities are performing
successfully, then they would be retained as permanent facilities at no additional cost. This same
strategy would also apply to the installation of traffic limit signs, minor bicycle lane striping, and
crosswalk installations. Based on the cost estimates above, if the recommended plan is successful,
almost half of the funds spend on interim facilities could be credited toward installing permanent
facilities. Additional costs for permanent facilities would involve designing and installing traffic circles
and entry islands with landscaping and irrigation.
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Install Stop Signs Only: This strategy might encourage motorists to select alternative routes but
would not address the issue of speeding vehicles at mid-block locations. However, stop signs alone
would probably not discourage through traffic from entering the neighborhood. Without some control
of braking or acceleration from new stop-controlled intersections, the City should expect to receive
complaints from residents who live adjacent to the intersections. Stop signs are inexpensive to install,
remove, and maintain. When obeyed, they provide gaps in traffic that make turning movements onto
or from the cross streets easier.
B. Install Road Humps and Traffic Circles Only: This strategy would reduce traffic speeds on
effected streets. While traffic diversion is sometimes identified as a secondary benefit of road humps,
experience in other communities have shown that it is speculative to assume this benefit -- especially
if the "kinder and gentler" road humps are installed. More abrupt road humps could be considered to
o2 -12
���n�i�►►�lulll{Ill�p��"���q�UIU City Of san L_A OsispO
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
further encourage motorists to select alternate routes.
However, more aggressive road humps might prove unacceptable to people who live in the neighborhood
and would impact emergency vehicles. It should be noted that the draft plan suggests that if the added
stop signs do not result in a reduction in traffic volumes, then they would be replaced with traffic
circles. Road humps cost about $1,250 per hump to install and are inexpensive to maintain while
permanent traffic circles can be more expensive to install and maintain.
Preliminary Cost Estimate for Chorro Area Interim:Traffic Calming Facilities
Description of Work Cost ($) FY
Design services for the preparation of plans and specifications as needed 7,000 95-96
Installation of 16 road humps and pavement markings 20,000 95-96
Add incidental bike lane striping north of Foothill on Chorro 300 95-96
Restripe left tum pockets @ Lincoln & Foothill intersections; form entry 2,500 95-96
island south of Lincoln using plastic pylons and pavement markings.
Install traffic circles at the Mt. View-Broad, Mt. View-Chorro, Rougeot- 4,500 95-96
Chorro and Meinecke-Benton intersections, using paint & pylons with
approach striping. Install ladder cross walks on cross streets. .
Install advisory signs on Chorro Street and Foothill Boulevard 500 95-96
Install asphalt curbing and interim landscaping @ entry island & at 4 15,000 96-97
traffic circles
Install 25 mph speed limit signs on Chorro Street (assuming 85th 800 96-97
percentile compliance)
Install stop signs on Chorro @ 3 intersections with limit lines and 3,000 96-97
ladder cross walks
Subtotal $539600
20%Contingency $10,720
TOTAL $64,300
C. Greater Reliance on Traffic Circles to Slow Traffic: This strategy would involve:
❑ On Chorro Street, installing additional traffic circles at the West, Mission, Venable, and Center
Street intersections; not installing the proposed stop signs at Mission, Center and Peach Streets;
retaining stop signs at the Meinecke, Murray and Lincoln intersections, and not installing the
proposed nine road humps.
�- I'F
����H�imi►i�llllllllip° 9�UIII MY OF San L,41S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
❑ On Broad Street, not installing the proposed four road humps.
❑ On Murray Street continue to install road humps as recommended by the draft plan.
Additional traffic circles on Chorro Street has the potential for slowing traffic. They would also provide
a greater opportunity (at greater cost) for installing landscaping within the area and providing for
neighborhood beautification. Traffic circles tend to slow traffic on either side of the circle but are not
as effective as road humps in slowing mid-block traffic. Also,at intersections where pedestrian crossings
are anticipated (eg. the Mission-Chorro intersection) they are not recommended. On Broad Street,
existing traffic conditions would not significantly change since the only new facility would be the traffic
circle at the Mountain View intersection.
This strategy would do little to divert traffic to alternate routes and achieve Circulation Element
standards for traffic volumes.
D. Partial Street Closures With Fewer Road Humps: This strategy would address both the concern
for cut-through traffic and traffic speed. There are a number of opportunities for diverting one direction
of traffic from Chorro and Broad Streets. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates that
partial street closures can reduce traffic levels on a particular corridor by about 40%. The installation
of barriers to stop through traffic in one direction could be inexpensively constructed and designed to
allow emergency vehicles to pass through them. Installing the "kinder and gentler" type of road humps
would be effective in reducing speeding. Installing fewer road humps than proposed by the plan would
have less effect on emergency vehicles.
The design committee did not select this strategy because of the potential public controversy associated
with street closures. Also, access for area residents might become more circuitous and traffic levels on
cross streets (such as Meinecke and Murray Streets) might increase.
It is staffs belief that partial street closures could more effectively achieve Circulation Element goals
for reducing traffic in the neighborhood while maintaining sufficient access options. However, without
a strong and enduring commitment by the City Council, this strategy may not be possible given the
inevitable criticism from both in-city and out-of-city motorists that travel through the area. Experience
in other cities such as Berkeley show that a closure strategy is initially very controversial, although
communities can adapt over time. (Note: Berkeley eventually phased out most of its street closures.)
E. Full Closure of Selected Streets: There are options for closing Chorro Street and alternative
parallel routes in the planning area to through traffic. The positive and negative aspects of this strategy
are similar but more extensive than those described for alternative C above.
F. Use of Altemate Traffic Calming Devices: There are a variety of traffic calming devices that the
City can install. Exhibit C identifies some of these facilities that are proposed in Boulder, Colorado.
Literature published in Europe presents the design of many other types of facilities. While it is not
possible to write a critique of each facility as part of this report, it is safe to say that most of the
alternative facilities are more expensive and do not necessarily slow or divert traffic to a greater extent
than the facilities proposed by the draft plan.
�m��iu►��IIIII��P��u������U city of San OBISp0
.Hii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Clearly, there are other facilities that provide an opportunity for landscaping and neighborhood
beautification. Some of these include medians, bulbouts at intersections, "sidians," and raised crosswalks
and intersections. The design group did not recommend these facilities at this time because of their
installation and maintenance costs. The neighborhood and the City may consider adding these facilities
in the future to provide greater landscape relief for the area. Other changes might include the
installation of sidewalks along key segments of Chorro and Broad Streets and the continued planting of
street trees to provide a landscape canopy.
G. Revise Traffic Volume Standards for Chorro, Meinecke and Murray Streets: The City Council
could decide to reevaluate the traffic volume standards set for Chorro Street by the adopted Circulation
Element. The Circulation Element currently stipulates that Chorro Street accommodate no more than
5,000 vehicles per day (about half the current volume) and that Meinecke and Murray Streets
accommodate no more than 1,500 vehicles per day (about 500 vehicles less than the current volume).
Alternative standards could be considered that allows for traffic levels that are higher than those currently
stipulated by the Circulation Element. These alternate levels were subject to significant debate during
the City Council's Circulation Element public hearings in 1994. Changing traffic calming goals at this
point would not be supported by the majority of Chorro Area residents.
If reducing traffic volumes was no longer an objective for the Chorro Street area, then a traffic calming
plan would focus only on reducing traffic speeds. Implementing this strategy would suggest that the
recommended plan be changed to retain the road humps and traffic circles but delete the stop signs,
intersection and signalization changes. If the City Council desires to pursue this alternate, it should
adopt a scaled-back traffic calming plan and initiate an amendment to the Circulation Element to
establish new traffic volume standards for Chorro, Meinecke and Murray Streets.
ATTACE9WINTS
EXHIBIT A: Final Draft of the Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan (January, 1996)
EXHIBIT B: Traffic Calming Plan Work Program and Schedule (August, 1995)
EXHIBIT C: Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (Boulder, Colorado, 1995)
EXHIBIT D: Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration
EXHIBIT E: Baseline Traffic/Noise Conditions within the Chorro Street Area
EXHIBIT F: Council Resolution Adopting the Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan
0.2-90
EXHIBIT A
THE CHORRO AREA NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Almost three years ago, Chorro Area residents organized an effort to save their
neighborhood. For many years speeding motorists and high levels of non-neighborhood
traffic had been degrading their quality of life, and the problem was getting worse. This plan
is the first tangible step towards reclaiming their neighborhood. The plan's overall goal is to
improve the quality of life for Chorro Area residents by slowing traffic and discouraging
through traffic from using residential streets. This goal is consistent with San Luis Obispo's
adopted General Plan Circulation Element.
On September 6, 1995, the residents sponsored a neighborhood workshop to solicit public
comments. A questionnaire was also distributed to area households. A design committee
was formed to review all comments and prepare a draft plan. A draft plan was completed
and mailed to area households along with a questionnaire. On November 1. 1995, a second
workshop was held and about 50 people attended. Based on the comments and suggestions
made at this workshop, the design committee revised the draft plan and submitted it to the
Community Development Department for an evaluation of its environmental impacts.
On February 20, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the plan
submitted by the design committee. After receiving public comment and discussing various
design options, the Council adopted this document (Resolution , 1996 series).
APPLICATION
Goals, objectives, standards and projects described in this plan apply to streets shown within
the dark line drawn on the Chorro Area Map.
GOAL
Improve the quality of life in the Chorro Area by achieving and maintaining the General
Plan Circulation Element's standards for traffic speed and volume for all streets.
OBTECTIVES
• Immediately reduce traffic speed on Chorro Street to 25 mph (40.2 kph) or less and
maintain this standard. Maintain traffic speeds of 25 mph (40.2 kph) on Broad Street.
• Over time, reduce traffic volumes on Chorro Street to 5,000 vehicles per day, and on
Murray and Meinecke Streets to 1,500 vehicles per day for each street and maintain these
levels
• Do not allow traffic volumes to exceed standards set by the Circulation Element for any
street within the Chorro Area.
42'012r/
MOTH= BLVD
FL
Office
_ - _ j// Commercial
t i .:-..• � Study Boundary
..ro" % :: ;:::. Existing Stop
A wmectt .n:•
New Stop
Existing Bump
' * New Speed Hump
N.CHORRO LANE CHANGE
MUMAY AVE. * • New Traffic Circle
7.MurO D. I F.
LINCOLN 1 1 1
, 1 , 1
STOPSTOP ,DySLOP ST
� %
•
O Pz \ / I S
bf �$ D� 11 ,,uuu ST Ii I 1
U N� �_\ _PO 1 1
O , SC1 IT
POP
¢ TRAFFIC CIRCLE
F,,
• 1
192
Q V \`\••v. O \
W � S[OP
THE CHORRO AREA NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY AREA
�-22
• Monitor the compliance of all streets within and adjoining the Chorro Area with
Circulation Element's standards for traffic speed, volume and congestion levels.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (See map for approximate locations of facilities)
The plan retains all existing stop signs and speed humps within the Chorro Area, except the
speed hump at Chorro and Mission, which will be removed in 1996.
The plan for new facilities is described below and on the accompanying map. The map also
shows existing speed humps and stop signs on Broad and Chorro Streets to give a better
overall picture of traffic control within the neighborhood. Cross street stop signs, although
not shown, remain in place.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
START: City Council approval in February 1996.
PHASE I: complete by June 1, 1996
A. Speed humps. Install without pylons on Chorro, Broad and Murray, approximately
where shown on the neighborhood map (see * on map).
B. Traffic circles. install test facilities (see 0 on map) with temporary pylons at:
° Chorro at Mountain View
° Chorro at Rougeot
° Broad at Mt. View
° Meinecke at Benton
C. At North Chorro and Foothill.
-
° Re-stripe North Chorro St. to eliminate the southbound left-turn-only lane (see
diagram on map) and add bike lane striping.
• Increase the green light time for Foothill traffic vs. Chorro green light time.
D. At Chorro and Lincoln:
Re-stripe Chorro to shorten the northbound left-turn-only lane and install a test
"entry" island with temporary pylons (see #1 on map).
E. Advisory signs. Install signs on Foothill and on Chorro near Peach advising
through traffic and trucks to use Santa Rosa Ave.
F. Santa Rosa signal timing from Walnut to Pismo: Synchronize City traffic signals
to provide smooth flow for Santa Rosa traffic and draw drivers off of Chorro.
G. Pylons. Remove temporary pylons from the speed table at Chorro and Mission.
PHASE II: June through October, 1996
A. Monitor traffic speed and volume on neighborhood streets.
B. Adjust facilities as appropriate and correct all undesirable traffic redistributions.
PHASE III: complete by December 1, 1996
A. 25 mph speed limit: Install new speed limit signs on Chorro.
B. Curbs and interim landscaping. Install permanent curbs and interim landscaping
at the Lincoln "entry" island and all traffic circles. Remove unnecessary pylons.
C. Stop signs: Install new stop signs on Chorro at Mission, Center and Peach Streets.
D. Existing speed hump. Remove the speed hump at Chorro and Mission.
a:�
PHASE IV: February through May, 1997
A. Monitor traffic speed and volume on neighborhood streets.
B. Adjust facilities as appropriate and correct all undesirable traffic redistributions.
PHASE V: complete by July 1, 1997
A. Permanent landscaping. Install traffic circle landscaping.
B. Entryfeature: Install neighborhood entry feature and permanent landscaping
within the Lincoln St. island and the Rougeot traffic circle see #2 on map)..
C. Evaluate Chorro stop signs: If the traffic volume on Chorro has not been reduced
by at least 25%, evaluate replacing the Chorro St. stop signs at Mission and Center
with traffic circles.
PHASE VI: By December 1, 1997
A. Future measures: Evaluate speed and volume of neighborhood traffic. Implement
additional measures to correct undesirable traffic redistributions.
STANDARDS
• The 25 mph (40.2 kph) speed objective means that 85% of motorists will not exceed this
speed.
• New speed humps installed on Chorro and Broad Street will be 12 feet (3.66 m) long and
2-5/8 inches (6.67 cm) high. Speed humps installed on other streets shall be 12 feet (3.66
m) long and 3 to 4 inches (7.62 to 10.16 cm) high. Advance warning of speed humps
should be provided by pavement markings only, not signs.
• Traffic circles shall maintain a clear travel way of 20 feet (6.10 m) between the apex of a
curb radius at an intersection and the edge of the circle.
• Limit lines or "stop bars" will be installed at all stop-controlled intersections to provide a
clear area for pedestrian crossing.
• Ladder style crosswalks will be installed and maintained on cross streets at intersections
with traffic circles and on Chorro Street at Murray Street to clearly define the pedestrian
crossing area.
• Interim landscaping in traffic circles and entry islands will be placed in portable planters
that do not require cutting the street surface. Interim and permanent landscaping will be
maintained by the City.
• Amendments to this plan may be initiated by any person and shall be considered by the
City Council at a public hearing no more than twice a year. All applications for
amendment shall require notice of all property owners and tenants within the Chorro
Area. An application fee shall be charged that covers the cost of notice and staff time.
FOR MORE INFORMATION...
about this plan or the process used to develop it, contact the San Luis Obispo Public Works
Department, 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, telephone (805)781-7210.
^"a2
CHORRO AREA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PLAN EXHIBIT B
WORK PROGRAM
arget Date (1) ; Wtiilc Item'; qty Responstbthty Gtoup Responstbdtty
August 21 Send out questionnaire to all Prepare mailing list and 8.5 x 11 Prepare questionnaire for
area residents & property map; get questionnaire from group distribution to area
owners along with notice of and mail to area residents & residents and property
first study session. property owners. owners.
September 6 Hold first study session at SLO Schedule room for the study Prepare agenda for
(7 pm in public library or City Hall; session; attend session and take meeting, manage the
community room invite residents to identify notes. meeting and take minutes.
at Public Library) problems, solutions and program
goals.
TBA Establish goals and objectives Participate as needed Prepare draft set of goals
for managing traffic in the and objectives for
Chorro Street area. inclusion in the
management plan.
October 13 Study alternative strategies and Participate in planning effort; Specifically identify a
plans; select a preferred plan involve Fire Department and preferred plan and
and implementation schedule to Caltrans representatives as needed; implementation schedule
go forward with. provide map & notice for second to go forward with.
study session; begin traffic
surveys.
November 1 Hold second study session to Schedule room for the study Prepare agenda for
(7 pm in City review with area residents the session; attend session and take meeting, manage the
Council chambers preferred plan; take suggestions notes. meeting and take minutes.
@ City Hall) for changes and achieve
consensus.
December 1 (2) Complete the hearing draft plan Establish a outline for the plan, Based on outline, prepare
for submittal to the City provide editing and graphics as the draft and "camera-
Council. needed; publish the plan for ready" final plan
public review and distribution to document.
City Council.
December 1 Complete survey of traffic Conduct traffic counts and speed Assist with turning counts
conditions in neighborhood and surveys at key locations; conduct at intersections as needed.
other areas based on preferred spot noise studies as needed. Other help may be defined
plan• based on preferred plan.
January 15 Complete the CEQA Process Send hearing draft plan to the NA
Community Development
Department for preparation of
required environmental
documents.
February 15 (3) Hold First City Council Hearing Prepare Staff Report, graphics, Present the Plan to the
provide hearing notice and take City Council.
minutes.
All of these dates are anticipate completion ates.
(2) Group may decide that a Council Study Session is desired at this point, prior to the CEQA process.
(3) Target date contingent upon completion of the CEQA process and granting of a Negative Declaration.
EXHIBIT C
City of Boulder
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
mitigate - To cause to become less harsh or hostile
cw?,.-o24
The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Working Group
Matthew Barnes Bicycling Representative
John Bolane Business Representative
Ann Coburn Neighborhood Representative
Gwen Ecks Pedestrian Representative
Michael Gardner-Sweeney Transportation Engineering Representative
Clifford Harvey Fire Department Representative
Cynthia Kain Neighborhood Representative
Richard Montague Neighborhood Representative
Susan Osborne Planning Department Representative
Kevin Rooney Neighborhood Representative
Sgt. Michael F. Root Police Department Representative
Sharon Rosall Neighborhood Representative
Jack Rudd Neighborhood Representative
Shelley Schlender Neighborhood Representative
Process Monitor
Charles Margolf
Proiect Manager/Facilitator
Kathryn Van Note
This project was made possible in part by a grant from the
Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Highway Safety
Introduction
The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program was developed in response to increasing
resident demand for the City to do something about speeding and other traffic problems on our
streets. A working group made up of neighborhood residents, City staff and bicycling,pedestrian
and business interests was formed to educate themselves about the myriad ways to reduce the
negative impacts of traffic and to make recommendations to the community and City Council on
the guidelines for the program. The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Working Group met in full
committee and in subcommittee for five months to accomplish their task. The attached report
is a result of their efforts.
Program Goals and Objectives
1. Improve neighborhood livability by encouraging adherence to the speed limit.
2. Increase access, safety and comfort for alternative transportation users on neighborhood
streets.
3. Encourage citizen involvement in solutions to neighborhood traffic problems.
4. Appropriately channel public resources by prioritizing traffic mitigation requests according
to documentable criteria.
5. Effectively address the dual, and frequently conflicting, public safety interests of traffic
mitigation and emergency response.
6. Change the transportation mores in the City of Boulder through education, respectful
communication,participation, planning and design, to more accurately reflect overall City
transportation and environmental policies and values.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 1
a-0?r
Policies
The following policies provide the framework for the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation
Program.
1. Any two lane, residential street may be considered for traffic mitigation through this
Program. Principal arterials will not be considered for mitigation through the NTMP.
2. Arterials are the most desirable facilities for through traffic. Feasible opportunities for
re-routing traffic from one street to a higher classification street will be explored.
3. Traffic may be re-routed from one street to another of equal classification as a result of
a neighborhood traffic mitigation project, if the end result is a more equal distribution
of the traffic burden. If re-routed traffic speeds excessively, those streets will be
mitigated.
4. Re-routing of traffic onto a lower classification street from a higher classification street
as a result of a mitigation project is unacceptable. Any increase of more than 10% will
require a reevaluation of the original project.
5. Neighborhood livability should be given precedence over marginal motor vehicle
efficiencies.
6. Reasonable emergency vehicle access should be preserved.
7. NTMP projects should encourage and enhance bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to
neighborhood destinations, while maintaining reasonable automobile access.
8. Implementation of the NTMP will be in accordance with the procedures set forward in
this document, in keeping. with sound engineering practices and within the limits of
available resources.
9. NTMP projects should be compatible with overall City transportation goals and
objectives, as set forth in the Transportation Master Plan and the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan. Projects should also complement the transportation-related goals
set forth in any completed subcommunity plan.
10. The NTMP is not designed to address dangerous intersections, mitigate noise from major
arterials, redesign the overall transportation/street classification system or effect a modal
shift.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
page 2
Ine .P—roees
. � x•;30
T,P�FjC P1P08Lerl
Lily and rejq,7601 ood
gdhv Irfa ndlon
SELF-17el-P
PROGRit l5 51*e fix Yes
likdy? 5radl poi
EdLcdlon and NO -)Olufion
50,Vna,--.%
NO Top NO
Neighbor-lo Onrxid ?ron� Dom ii
rrlghbor won(?
a,Q,enc" YC5
caloolgre, -- Gily
Sore and lcgd d"'dop
gucrllla fadlcs
for irdf/c farrinqRpeady by . .
NO
HOW fo 6u//
df dalnep rc5
d your-,.Jif res
Arrvdly ra )t
"rcady'1 proJ«i�
Pro/ed anid NO Rev/x /f
fundlrq approved nced�d
Yes
DO fr!
NO Doc-,5ii DocNO
Doc--, /f
wol ?
u • •
u
res res
4 3/
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MITIGATION PROGRAM PROCESS
If you're reading this document, you're probably concerned about the traffic in your
neighborhood. You aren't alone. Traffic --- especially speeding traffic --- is the number one
concern in many neighborhoods throughout the country. Because more people drive more miles
every year, the problem is not likely to diminish. While complex issues affect traffic behavior,
for you it boils down to what's happening where you live, walk, bicycle and drive. This program
has been developed by a task force of neighborhood residents, bicyclists, pedestrians, business
people, planners, traffic engineers, police and emergency response professionals. This group
worked to identify what traffic mitigation tools are available, how to use them, and how the City
and neighborhoods can team up to tame the traffic on our neighborhood streets.
Goals
We encourage Boulder citizens to promote safe driving on neighborhood streets, with a
smooth flow of traffic, but also more room for alternative users and overall livability. This can
be accomplished by changing drivers' attitudes and by redesigning streets. We also want every
neighborhood involved in mitigation to leave the process better organized and better educated
about traffic problems and traffic mitigation techniques.
Program Scope
The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) focuses on neighborhood traffic
issues generally caused by speeding and volume. While City staff will try to help with any
traffic concern you may have, sometimes they will direct you elsewhere. For instance, concerns
about a specific dangerous intersection, overall transportation system planning and major noise
mitigation projects are not addressed through the NTMP. See the contact list for who to call
with these issues.
The Process
What follows is a step-by-step, narrative description of the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation
Program process. The flow chart on the previous page gives you a process-at-a-glance version.
Phase One: Information Gathering
Before a neighborhood traffic problem can be solved, it must be understood. If you're
thinking, "Any idiot can see what's needed. Just stick a stop sign on every corner and a cop in
front of my house," then think again. Many citizens on the NTMP Working Group started with
similar ideas. We discovered the issues are more complex than we realized. Data gathering
really matters. It should be the first phase of any mitigation.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 5
If you have a traffic problem, call the Transportation Division at 411-3266. The TranStaff
will ask questions to pinpoint your concerns and check to see if an existing neighborhood group
is already working on the issue. If so, they'll connect you with that group. If not, you'll receive
a questionnaire asking for greater detail about your concerns and information about how to
proceed.
Transportation staff will identify a logical geographical area affected by the stated problem.
Your whole, defined "neighborhood" may or may not be involved or the problem may cross
traditional "neighborhood" boundaries. For the purposes of this program, "neighborhood" will
be functionally defined as the area invloved with or affected by the stated traffic concern.
Staff will also check to see whether the involved street(s) are scheduled for a major
maintenance or repair project. Relevant speed, volume and other data (see Priority Checklist)
will then be gathered and points assigned based on the study results. Neighborhoods where a low
cost solution may work are targeted for a "Small Pot" solution.
Phase Two: Ranking Requests for Projects
It would take millions of dollars and dozens of experts to solve all of our neighborhood
traffic concerns through engineered solutions. Both resources are limited.
We have developed a ranking process so that all neighborhoods can have a better idea of
when each may receive the needed assistance. The first ranking will measure their need, through
a prioritization formula which quantifies problems such as speed and lack of safe gaps between
cars (outlined in "Priority Checklist, attached.) The highest need neighborhoods will receive a
one-year commitment from Transportation Staff for intensive staff assistance to develop a
mitigation project proposal. All rankings will be of public record and staff will do its best to
translate your ranking into a projected time frame for assistance. Each neighborhood can reapply
for a new "needs" ranking the following year.
The transportation staff estimates that it can work with 2 - 3 "big" projects at one time.
Designing a "big" project may take up to a year, and building it could take another year.
Meanwhile, promising "small pot" projects can progress, too. (See section on "the Small Pot"
for details.) These might be neighborhoods where an effective solution appears straightforward
and relatively inexpensive, the neighborhood is in substantial agreement on it and the Fire
Department has accepted it. Depending on how quick each fix, 5 - 15 small pot projects might
be done in a year. Small pot projects will be considered in order, according to the needs ranking,
neighborhoods who want to use passive methods, such as repounless a neighborhood intends to pay 100% of its project. City staff also will be working with
safer driving awareness. rting blatant offenders and building
Neighborhoods with lower rankings can still move forward. See the "Self-Help" section for
ideas on how.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
page 6
O2'3
Phase Three: "Big" Project Design
This program envisions the establishment of an agreement between City staff and the
neighborhood that details the project development process and a projected timeline. This
agreement may include neighborhood participation in traffic taming efforts, education/consensus
building activities, commitments for additional required studies, exploration of funding
alternatives and a clear articulation of the goals of the proposed project and how its effectiveness
will be evaluated. Cost should be a strong consideration throughout the process.
The more quickly a neighborhood, surrounding neighborhoods, relevant special interest
groups and the City can agree to a project, the more quickly it can be done. If your
neighborhood has already devised a dream design for your street and it meets City guidelines,
including emergency response requirements, you're well ahead of the game. (Some
neighborhoods have hired traffic planners, developers and/or landscape architects to help them
create a more livable street.) It's even better if the neighborhoods surrounding yours understand
and feel comfortable with your plan, and you've considered the interests of all concerned citizens
(bicyclists, the school community, etc.). These are great ways to shorten design and/or approval
time. Alternatively, if you want the City staff to design a project that will address your
documented traffic problems, it will probably take less of both of your time. However, if you
choose not to be involved in the design, it is still your responsibility to communicate your
interests and expectations to City staff, if you expect them to be met. Only projects that meet
the approval of both the neighborhood and staff will be considered for funding, however staff
recommendations can be appealed to the Transportation Advisory Board.
In most cases, temporary installations of a proposed project features will be used to test the
design and evaluate it's effectiveness. This will allow an opportunity to make adjustments and
potentially improve on the design before it is "cast in stone", so to speak.
Regardless of size, all projects must be compatible with the City's overall Transportation
Master Plan guidelines and any relevant subcommunity plan goals. They must also demonstrate
commitment to improving a neighborhood's livability without creating notable problems in
another neighborhood. Most major projects will most likely require a Community Environmental
Assessment Process (CEAP).
Reaching Consensus
What if you want wider sidewalks, but your neighbor hates sidewalks altogether? What if
you love speed humps to slow traffic, but another neighbor (or the Fire Department) fears they
will increase emergency response time too much? What if your whole street agrees that "Do Not
Enter" signs are perfect, but five nearby streets say that's unfair? Because people's preferences
may differ, any neighborhood entering traffic mitigation will need to enter into an agreement.
The agreement will identify what problems are being addressed and how long the design process
should take (generally, not longer than a year). It will address how to resolve disputes and how
to determine if the ideas are consistent with the City's Transportation Master Plan (The Funding
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 7
Ranking Formula summarizes many attributes for a design. Neighborhoods will be strongly
encouraged to consider, and measure, their plan against its guidelines, to increase the likelihood
of funding support). Also, most neighborhoods will be encouraged to try more neighborhood
involvement. This alone has been known to solve many traffic problems. Temporary solutions
may be tried as well. "Temporary tools" include any device that is relatively inexpensive to
install and dismantle. Often, these can provide data useful for building a more permanent
solution.
Enough citizen opposition to your project can squelch it, but the opposition must be valid.
A speeder complaining that a speed hump is a hassle does not constitute a valid concern. But
a citizen warning that a new median will interfere with her driveway access, or pose a hazard to
bicyclists, may have a point. Each project will inevitably be a negotiation and will probably
involve tradeoffs, e.g. an expectation of significantly improved safety may outweigh a potential
negative, such as inconvenience. Objections must be consistent with the Transportation Master
Plan goals and be documentable. Also, critics must demonstrate some degree of "standing", i.e.
include a stipulation that an installation will be removed if unforeseen (or predict
the project actually affects them. However, an evaluation agreement for a project could
cte
impacts are significantly realized. d) negative
We hope opposition occurs less often than win/win situations, in which varied perspectives
lead to the best possible plan. To encourage win/win scenarios, canvas surrounding areas and
get them involved in the design process early. The same goes for affected interests groups, such
as pedestrians, bicyclists and schools. (Emergency response interests will be automatically
involved in project design.)
We also hope that the City and the neighborhoods will risk trying new approaches, even if
their outcome is uncertain. We're trying to hit a moving target - solve a problem that is
changing week by week. We need room to observe how real, innovative ideas work. With this
attitude, we are more likely to successfully tackle our neighborhood traffic issues and create more
livable streets.
Phase Four: Funding
Cost counts. If you and the City can agree on a low(er) cost solution, it's easier to fund
(and more projects can be funded). Coordinating a mitigation project with already planned street
improvements will usually lower overall cost. Generally, a neighborhood is asked to pay around
half of the cost of physical mitigation. However, if the neighborhood funds a larger percentage,
or even all, of the project costs, construction becomes more assured. (See "Funding Ranking
Formula"). This is not to say that a neighborhood with high need and not a lot of money will
be bypassed. It's simply a way of allowing neighborhoods that want to and can afford to help
to get something built faster, to do so. The City is committed to ensuring a basic, effective level
of mitigation on neighborhood streets. Ifa neighborhood decides that it wants significant,
additional amenities (the Cadillac model), it will need to pay the extra cost of these.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
page 8
You may wonder how you tell the difference between "basic" and "Cadillac." It may depend
a lot on your particular neighborhood and the maintenance agreements it has with the City. If
your street is scheduled to get brand new sidewalks or be reconstructed, you might "tweak" the
design of a standard curb and gutter street into something new. Tying the mitigation redesign
into major reconstruction will likely make this transformation more affordable. On the other
hand, if you live on a street with sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and your street needs little
maintenance, there may be little opportunity to "save money" by tying your project to scheduled
maintenance. Because the need for maintenance and who pays for it varies from neighborhood
to neighborhood, we recommend that you find out the specifics for your neighborhood. Also,
find out when large amounts of money would be spent on street maintenance, utility project or
other improvement, potentially making a window of opportunity for better street design.
Strive for good plans that cost as little as possible. Naturally, if a well-designed project
costs only a few hundred dollars, or if a neighborhood is paying for it all themselves, it goes
through (assuming Fire Department acceptance). Projects requiring little City funding may go
through more quickly, since they do not require the same review process (Transportation
Advisory Board, City Council) as the large ones, and can be done at the discretion of the
Transportation Division. But plenty of seemingly simple projects can cost tens or hundreds of
thousands of dollars per block, so it's very important that neighborhoods and the City work hard
to design and construct projects that allocate resources reasonably.
Each year, completed project proposals will be ranked for funding priority based on the
"Funding Ranking Formula". The formula includes an assessment of the anticipated impacts of
the project by the neighborhood, adjacent neighborhoods, .City staff and affected interest groups.
The ranking, along with any staff recommendations, will be presented to the Transportation
Advisory Board. The TAB will make its NTM funding recommendation to City Council. If the
project is likely to require mitigation on adjacent streets, the funding that would be required to
do that may be set aside at this time as well. Neighborhoods whose projects are rejected by
either TAB or Council will have the opportunity to amend their proposals and be reconsidered
for funding the following year.
Phase Five: Implementation
This is the doing it part, whether building a project or implementing a neighborhood trip
reduction initiative. For built projects, it's important that the final, engineered drawings be
brought back to the neighborhood for review. (The project may have been approved based on
conceptual drawings only.) This will help ensure no surprises once construction begins. The
City's project managers also need to provide ample notification to residents of construction start
dates and projected impacts of the construction phase (e.g limited driveway access, etc.).
Phase Six: Evaluation
Each project will be evaluated for effectiveness,based on the same factors that measured the
problem and design in the first place and realistic expectations about how close to perfect we can
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 9
42-:34
get. Since much of what we do will be experimental, or at least new to Boulder, it will be
important to measure the actual change in speed, gaps, volume, etc., so that other neighborhoods
can benefit from your experience.
For all projects, but particularly experimental ones, we will need to specifically articulate
how we will define "success" before the treatment is installed. If it fails to meet even our
minimum expectations, or (worse still) the negatives outweigh the positives, it will be removed.
WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?
Design Process Takes Too Long
What if, in spite of your heroic efforts, you just can't get everyone to agree on the design
before the year is up. Go ahead and reapply for help again for the following year. Most likely,
your neighborhood still has a lot of need, and you may be able to improve the neighborhood
consensus --- or your design plan --- in that year. After the second year though, the City can
deny continued staff assistance to a floundering group, in order to give attention to another
neighborhood. If you feel you are being denied help unfairly, you can appeal the decision to the
Transportation Advisory Board.
No Money in the Bank
How about if everybody loves your plan, but there just isn't any money to do it right now?
You'll have to wait until next year and be re-ranked with the other projects that are "ready" at
that point. In the intervening year, everyone can assess whether to trim the project and/or find
more funding. Many projects will be installed with temporary materials to see how they work.
If this hasn't happened for your project yet, it might be an option to pursue while you wait for
"permanent" funding.
You Got It Built, But It Didn't Work
What if your project gets designed, approved, funded, constructed --- but it didn't get you
the anticipated results? (Every project will be evaluated for effectiveness, based on anticipated
results). If it's actually worse than before, in all likelihood it will be removed. This is a
relatively new game we're playing here. We're going to be doing some experimenting and can't
guarantee results. However, if your traffic problem is still significant (based on the needs
assessment formula), the City will continue to work with your neighborhood to try effectively
mitigate the problem. We will all be learning from each other's successes and failures as we
go along, so we anticipate not implementing very many failures before we figure out what works
and what doesn't. We envision a collaborative effort by all interested parties in developing these
projects, so if your mitigation did not meet your expectations, use the time before you reapply.
to watch what other neighborhoods are doing and see if some of the solutions they try mi
work better for you too. ght
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
page 10
a-37
"THE SMALL POT"
The size and scope of traffic problems in some neighborhoods mean they are unlikely to
qualify for large capital expenditures. However, sometimes, a low-cost, effective physical change
will become apparent and may merit the TranStaff and the neighborhood's attention. These
should truly be "good" solutions, not half-baked approaches used because they're cheap.
PHASE 1: IDENTIFYING "SMALL POT" POTENTIAL
Each year, the Transportation Division will set aside a portion of the money allocated for
neighborhood traffic mitigation for small projects (generally $10,000 or less, including data
gathering studies). The actual amount will be based on the total program allocation and current
mitigation requests.
Either a neighborhood or staff may propose the potential project, in writing. For a
neighborhood to propose the project, it must demonstrate resolve in these ways:
• signature support from neighborhood
• active in traffic taming efforts
• demonstrated working knowledge of tools and their appropriate settings
• agreement from the Fire Department, and
• compatibility with goals of the Transportation Master Plan.
For City to propose a small pot project, TranStaff identifies and approaches neighborhood
with a proposal, which also must accommodate emergency response requirements.
"Small pot" resources will still be allocated according to problem severity (based on the
Needs Assessment Checklist). Both City and neighborhood must agree to an evaluation and
dismantling of the installation, if the evaluation is negative. Small pot projects could include:
• conventional passive controls - signage, striping, and so forth.
• low cost physical changes (one small median, 1 or 2 speed humps, etc.)
• wild, untried ideas that sound like they just might work.
PHASE 2: DETERMINING "DO-ABILITY"
The neighborhood and TranStaff then discuss the idea's potential. If it looks viable,
neighborhood consensus is tested. Staff/supporting neighbors gather data and develop a
presentation. Staff/supporting neighbors identify neighborhoods that might be affected. A
workshop is held, inviting those affected to attend. Feedback is recorded and staff/neighborhood
discuss if opposition has merit, based on knowledge of tools and goals of the Transportation
Master Plan. If the opposition is indisputable, the idea is shelved. If a concern needs testing,
it is added to evaluation list. If an opposing neighborhood has traffic concerns that may not be
related to this problem/proposed change and is not part of a mitigation program, it will be given
information about how to start its.own project.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 11
�-3g
PHASE 3: FINAL APPROVAL
If significant consensus exists, this should go pretty quickly. If several small projects are
ready for funding at the same time, the same funding ranking process used for big projects will
be used. Approval focus is on project merit and strength of opposition.
PHASE 4: IMPLEMENTATION
City ensures everyone is on the same page, and notifies affected residents of
implementation schedule and anticipated construction inconveniences.
PHASE 5: EVALUATION
This is similar to evaluation for a large capital project. If the evaluation is negative, the project
will be dismantled. If the evaluation of a temporary installation is positive, steps will be taken
to remake it as a permanent tool.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
page 12
d2•3F
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET "SELF-HELP" PROGRAMS
Inevitably, not all neighborhoods will be at the top of the list, yet will represent a
significant number of concerned citizens. In order to help them move forward, the City will
provide any concerned citizen/neighborhood group with information or assistance in these areas:
I. REACHING THE TOP:
• City's budget for traffic mitigation.
• Why only a few projects can be handled at a time.
• When this neighborhood project might reach the top, based on current points.
• How to build more consensus and a broader support base.
(including special information for renters and neighbors of traffic generators)
• How to be considered for the "Small Pot" Program.
II. GAINING KNOW-HOW:
• The importance of knowledge in tackling these problems.
• Develop and offer information packets and evening/weekend seminars.
Consider topics such as:
- Traffic mitigation tools (including temporary) and overall traffic issues.
- Setting up a Traffic Taming group.
- Status reports on what we are learning from the projects that have been built
and neighborhood processes that were successful.
III. BECOMING TRAFFIC TAMERS:
• Overview of traffic taming techniques and their effectiveness.
• Explain how the city will help set up and evaluate traffic taming.
- Learning to use speed guns and noise meters, so that citizens become more
accurate gauges of such problems.
- Learning how to identify and report a habitual/blatant offender.
- Learning how to organize a broader base of support for traffic taming..
- (connecting with schools, other neighborhood groups (from babysitting coops
to crime watches).
- Trip reduction methods.
• On-going analysis of program's success.
- Speed/volume data will be gathered (short and long term).
- The ability to maintain taming efforts will be studied.
- This involvement improves the ability to reach consensus on built solutions
in the future, if they are warranted.
• Enforcement possibilities.
- How to gain and maintain credence with enforcement officials.
- How to report a habitual/blatant offender anonymously.
- How to make a citizen/s arrest.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 13
• Novel reminders
- Hand-lettered signs.
- Polite, legal but firm guerilla tactics used by other neighborhoods.
• Support groups for encouraging alternative transportation efforts, driving 25 mph.
IV. MITIGATING TRAFFIC FROM YOUR OWN, PRIVATE YARD.
• Noise reduction (Note: NTMP can provide resources for learning about mitigating
noise, but it will not provide major funding for noise abatement).
- Use of trees and landscaping.
- Soundproofing a home.
- Connecting with informed groups working on noise issues citywide.
• Visual ways to narrow from your own lot.
- Street trees
- Parking
V. PAYING FOR IT YOURSELF.
• Must allow traffic engineers to review safety and impact of proposed built solution
on the rest of the system.
• Contractors selected for work must meet city standards for building solution.
• Neighborhood must post bond, or otherwise guarantee sufficient funding to assure
work will be completed.
• Must adequately accommodate emergency response and other relevant interests
• City will evaluate project's success, based on priority checklist and stated project
goals.
(Note: If unanticipated negative results occur, neighborhood will not be penalized, since
City had a chance to review plan earlier. But the negative results might affect the next
neighborhood's chances. Conversely, any great success should be studied closely for repetition
elsewhere.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
page 14
a2 -�//
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MITIGATION PROGRAM
APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTACT NAME: PHONE:
1. Describe the location of your traffic problem, including the overall area affected, the worst
problem area, and the effects of the problem. Be sure to include street and intersection
names, etc.
2. Rank your neighborhood's traffic problems and provide a brief description of each (for
instance, time when the problem is worst, or specific issue, such as a pothole).
Speeding
Parking
Accident problem (please describe what you have observed. Major accidents problems
will be directed to the City Traffic Engineer for prompt attention).
Danger to pedestrians/bicyclists, etc. using street or sidewalk.
Danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. crossing streets (for instance, insufficient gaps for
safe crossing).
Difficulty leaving/entering your driveway or street.
Traffic volume
_ Traffic noise
Other (please explain)
3. Describe who you feel is involved. For instance, does a particular driver seem the main
problem, a certain kind of driver, or most drivers?
4. Who is affected? What neighborhood users are concerned (pedestrians, homeowners, etc.)?
(over, please)
C:2
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Applicant Questionnaire
Page 2
CONTACT: PHONE:
5. Have you participated in any city sponsored traffic mitigation efforts, including Traffic
Taming Programs or traffic workshops? Please list them here.
6. Please list any of the following characteristics of your neighborhood: large use by
pedestrians/bicyclists, etc; streets in major need of repair; school (say what kind and where);
pedestrian-oriented facilities (elderly housing, parks, medical centers, shopping areas, etc.).
7. Please include a list of those supporting your concerns, including their names, addresses,
phone numbers and signatures. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.)
�-�3
NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PRIORITY CHECKLIST
1. Speed (65 points maximum score)
98th% speed (# miles over the posted speed limit) X 2
+ 85th% speed (# miles over the posted speed limit) X 2
+ Average speed (# miles over the posted speed limit) X 2
= TOTAL points for speed
Speed will be measured in the highest speed location in the problem area.
The 98th% speed is that which 2% of the traffic is travelling at or over
The 85th% speed is that which 15% of the traffic is travelling at or over
2. Gaps (25 points maximum score)
A "gap" is the amount of time between two cars. An adequate "gap" for crossing the
problem street will be based on the width of the street to be crossed, assuming a 3'/x feet
per second crossing speed. The required crossing time will be multiplied by 2 to allow
for "judgment time". Gaps will be measured during the peak period.
120 adequate gaps per hour - no points
90 - 119 11
" - 5 points
60 - 89 - 10 points
45 - 59 - 15 points
30 - 44 - 20 points
under 30 - 25 points
3. Traffic volume (20 points maximum score)
1 point for each 500 vehicles/day.
4. Housing units per 1,000 feet along densest part of street(s)
(25 points maximum score)
5. Moving Targets (who would rather not be) (25 maximum score)
I point for each 10 pedestrian/bikers observed during peak periods, plus 1 point for each
bus stop, 2 per shop (8 maximum), 4 per hospital/medical center, 5 per park/school.
6. Planned Street Improvement/Alternative Funds (20 points maximum)
Up to 20 points for planned street improvements or funding likely to substantially reduce
the cost of physical traffic mitigation change. Note type of change, how much of street
will be changed, projected cost and overall effect on mitigation cost.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 17
FUNDING RANKING FORMULA
The neighborhood and Transportation staff must agree that ala is is ready before it
applies for funding.
1. Cost Factors
Total construction cost
Net change in maintenance costs
Minus cost to be paid by neighborhood and any other non-city sources
Minus cost of already planned maintenance/safety/utility construction costs
(includes special allowances for accident mitigation issues)
NET COST TO CITY FOR CONSTRUCTION
2. People Affected
Number of housing units along streets to be mitigated
Number of pedestrian/bicyclists observed during peak periods, plus 10 for each
park and 10% of student population of each elementary and middle school
_ TOTAL PEOPLE AFFECTED
3. Anticipated Effects (+, - or ?)
Four groups evaluate anticipated effects of the project. The groups are Transportation
staff, the neighborhood itself, the adjacent neighborhood area, and special experts (bike,
pedestrian, police, business and emergency groups). Each group in the special expert
category will mark the items specific to their interest. Each group doing the assessment
must provide a written explanation for its assessment. Their rationale will be considered
while reviewing their points.
Does the Plan Solve Issue(s)Identified by the "Needs Assessment" Checklist? Please
rank these factors within the ranges specified for each. A negative number means the
project is anticipated to make this condition worse. A positive number means the project
will improve this condition. A zero (0) indicates that this condition is not expected to
change as a result of implementing the project.
(+5 to -5) _ Speed
(+2 to -2) _ Gaps _ Volume
How does the plan affect system-wide issues? Please assess these with a +1, 0, or -1,
according to the project's anticipated effect on this factor.
_ Neighborhood Traffic Flow _ System-wide traffic flow
Bicyclists
_ Pedestrians
_ Emergency access Enforcement
Aesthetics
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program
page 18
a�s
5. Ranking for Funding Priority
1. Compute cost/benefit factor by multiplying the anticipated effect score by the people
affected sum and then dividing the product by the net cost of the project to the City.
2. Rank "funding-ready" projects.
3. Projects will be approved for funding in order of their ranking, except that if
neighborhood contribution is the sole deciding factor affecting a project's ranking, a
neighborhood with a greater documented need may be given precedence. If funding
falls short (say there is only enough for 2 1/2 projects) the third (or next ranked)
project will be approved as soon as additional funds are available. Projects that are
not funded in the current year will automatically be re-ranked in the following year,
along with other projects that are ready for funding consideration at that time.
6. Overall Reality Check
The urgency, total cost, and total potential benefits of "project ready" plans will be
reviewed to determine whether the City's overall funding of mitigation projects is realistic
for the year and, if too low, how projects can be.redesigned, city funds reallocated or the
issue presented to voters requesting additional funding, etc.
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program page 19
az-�b
The Tools
OBJECT/VES OF TRAPPIC
MMIGAT/ON
The NTMP Working Group saw three major problems with neighborhood streets.
• The danger from cars can be high. (Children,pets,and pedestrians can be hit. Cars can run into
stationary objects.)
• The streets tend to be monopolized by cars. (Children are taught that they can not play in the
street because of the cars. Cars park on the streets occupying a great deal of space.)
• Mobility for local traffic can be limited due to excessive non-local traffic. Local traffic may
also have problems leaving the neighborhood because of a lack of 'gaps' in traffic on high
volume streets.)
The subcommittee plans to advocate mitigation tools that decrease these problems on neighborhood
streets, and in turn increase the livability of Boulder's neighborhoods.
Most neighborhood street problems can be attributed to excessive speeds and high volume.
Consequently, tools were primarily analyzed by how they affected these conditions.
23
Basic Mir/CArioiv
THEORIC CONS/pE/gi4 rIpNS
• Streets in the past have been designed wide and straight, perhaps because cars were bigger
and drivers were less experienced. Today, however, these wide streets make speeding easy.
• In general, wider roads encourage higher motor vehicle speeds. It is therefore natural that
many motor vehicle mitigation tools are designed to narrow the road. Neckdowns, traffic
circles, and medians all decrease road width.
• It is very important for neighborhoods to identify where their traffic problem is occurring
(i.e. one or two "problem blocks" or an entire street). For effective traffic mitigation, tools
need to be placed every 150=800 feet. (One example might be traffic circles at an
intersection with speed humps placed midblock on either side.) If mitigation tools are used
too sparsely, traffic may slow close to the installation, but the overall speed will probably
not decrease. One tool may be used multiple times or several different tools may be used
in conjunction with one another.
• Most tools will affect noise, air quality, congestion, fuel consumption and many other
factors. Some can improve these conditions, others may cause these problems to increase.
• Emergency vehicle response times must be considered when designing and installing traffic
mitigation devices. The City Council has adopted a policy that requires the Fire Department
to be able to access any building or house within 6 minutes. Additionally, Council has
indicated that any one traffic mitigation device should not increase response time to a
neighborhood or building by more than 30 seconds.
• Emergency vehicles have more difficulty with 'vertical' mitigation devices such as speed
humps and raised crosswalks than with'horizontal'mitigation devices such as deviations and
neckdowns.
24
TR4FF/C MMIGAT/ON
AND
BICYCLE SAFETY
The narrower a road, the closer bicycles and motor vehicles will be to each other. Close proximity
can be dangerous if cars and bicycles are traveling at very different speeds. Mitigation efforts that
narrow roads without considering bicycle/motor vehicle speed differentials can be worse than taking
no action at all.
Some of these drawbacks can be addressed by designing the street with the assumption that bicycles
will take up the full lane. The street can then be designed so that cars slow to the speed (or nearly)
of bicycles.
Another way to avoid bicycle/car conflicts on a narrow road is to provide a separate bicycle path.
Bike paths,however, come with their own problems. Lots of driveways and side streets can render
them more dangerous than onstreet facilities; they require special winter maintenance; and they can
be expensive to construct.
The following examples demonstrate how traffic mitigation can affect a bicyclist, for better or
worse.
Situation One:
A wide, straight and flat street has a posted 25 mph limit, but the average motor vehicle drives 35
mph. The residents want the speeding to stop, and they want to cross the street more easily. No
appropriate parallel facility exists as a diversion option.
Unsafe and Ineffective Mitigation Attempt for Situation One:
One mid-block neckdown is constructed, with hopes of reducing traffic speed and making it easier
for pedestrians to cross the street. Unfortunately, the neckdown is too small to actually slow
traffic. The neckdown becomes a new danger zone, where cyclists must merge with vehicles
traveling much faster.
Safe and Effective Mitigation Attempt for Situation One
A mid-block neckdown is constructed, with speed humps installed approximately 100 feet before
and after. The speed humps slow the motor vehicles so that the cyclists can merge more safely.
25
a-67a
Situation Two:
A residential street runs up hill. The posted speed is 25 mph, but many motorists drive about 35
mph. Residents want the traffic slowed without losing on-street parallel parking.
Unsafe and Ineffective Mitigation Attempt forSituation Two.
4"N7
N y To narrow the road and reduce car speed
raised street. In the downhill lane cyclists can coastcllose o the 51S placed
h s d along the whole length of the
miles per
hour speed differential between the bikes and the motor vehicles, while snot. Thideal,isl probably
acceptable.
On the uphill lane, most cyclists will move much slower than the motor vehicles. The cyclist must
choose between obstructing the motor vehicles or riding close to the parked cars and risk the hazard
of colliding with opening car doors.
Safe and Effective Mitieation for Situation Two
The median is placed so that the downhill lane is narrower than the uphill lane. Narrowing the
downhill lane improves the likelihood that drivers will actually slow to 25 mph, a speed at which
bicycles can coast. Signs are posted on the downhill lane that request cyclists to use the full lane.
On the wider uphill lane, paint a bike lane that is out of reach of opening car doors. This way, cars
can pass the slower bicycles without crowding them.
26
psi
THE TOOLS
The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Working Group opted to examine many different mitigation
tools,rather than recommending only two or three,as some other cities'programs do. Many reasons
justify the inclusion of multiple tools:
• Boulder's neighborhoods are not all the same. Downtown Boulder was built on a grid
system with alleys. Some neighborhoods were planned with wide straight streets. Others
have wide and curving streets. Some neighborhood streets are 20 feet wide and others are
40 feet wide. Because of the variety in Boulder's street designs, different tools will be
needed to address differing traffic conditions.
• Boulder does not have a true 'arterial' system, with wide, four-lane roads at half mile
intervals that effectively move high volumes of traffic. Originally a town, Boulder was not
really designed as a city. The city evolved. Consequently, most of our streets, even high
volume streets, are lined with homes. Most cities do not do "neighborhood traffic
mitigation" on such streets. Our intention is to include any two lane, primarily residential
street in our program, therefore tools for many kinds of traffic conditions are addressed.
• Boulder's neighborhood's have different characters. A traffic circle may be aesthetically
pleasing and appropriate for one neighborhood but ugly or ineffective in another.
The NTMP Working Group has analyzed many common traffic mitigation tools (and even some
uncommon ones). This 'tool box_'should not eliminate other possible tools and ideas. Additionally,
these tools may be used in combination. Because Boulder's neighborhoods are unique,the solutions
to their traffic problems will probably be unique.
The following tool classifications and 'road maps' should make it easier for neighborhoods to
determine which tools are appropriate for their street(s).
27
a-sem
EE:: TOOLS BY
SSIPIcA T/ON
MIGHT REDUCE ACCIDENTS:''°
MIGHT REDUCE-V000ME;
• Traffic Circles • Education
• Channelization • All Barriers & Diverters
• Stop Signs (However, most stop • Stop signs
signs that will reduce accidents • Speed Humps
have already been installed.). • Semi-Diverters
• One way Streets • Street Closures
• Drop off zones for schools • Turn Prohibitions
• Any tool that reduces speed
and/or volume.
MIGHT INCREASE SAFETY
FOR PEDESTRIANS AND/OR
_ MIGHTREDUCESPEED: ;-
CYCQSTS:
• Drop off Zone at Schools •
• Traversable Barrier Deviations
• Forced Tum Barrier • Lane Narrowing
• Diagonal Divertor • Traffic Circle
• Photographic Radar • Traditional Enforcement
• Lane Eliminating Chokers 0 Raised Crosswalks
• Chokers/Neckdowns "Sideians"
• Raised Crosswalks • Speed Humps
• Raised Intersections • Realigned Intersections
• "Sideians" • Raised Intersections
• Photographic Radar
• Medians • Chokers
• Traffic Lights • (all types)
Deviations
• Barriers
• Psyscho Perception
• Street Closure
28
TOOLS RANKED BY COST
LESS THAN$1,000 BETWEEN$1;000 AND$10,000
• Education • Semi-Diverters with Non-Irrigated
• Neighborhood Speed Watch Landscaping
• Stop Signs • Raised Crosswalks (no drainage)
• Speed Limit Signs • Speed Humps
• Turn Prohibition Signs • Street Closures
• One Way Streets • Non-Irrigated Traversable Barriers
• Transverse Markings • Neighborhood Identification
• Crosswalks Median
• Creative Signs
• Rumble Strips
BETWEEN$10;000 AND
$40,000 GREATER THAN$40,000
• Lane narrowing • Deviations with irrigated
• Non-irrigated Deviations landscaping
• Neckdowns • Deviations with brick landscaping
• Semi-Diverters with Irrigated • Any type of realigned intersection
Landscaping • Any type of raised intersection
• Semi-Diverters with Brick • Irrigated Traffic Circle
Landscaping • Any type of Median
• Non-Irrigated Traffic Circle • Irrigated Median Barriers
• Non-Irrigated Median Barriers • Brick Landscaped Median Barriers
• Forced Turn Channelization • Any type of Diagonal Diverter
• Irrigated Traversable Barriers • Turning streets into cul-de-sacs
• Brick Landscaped Traversable
Barriers
29
= TOOL SYMBOLS EXPLAINED
Rags
Tools are marked with 1 to 4 dollar signs, depending on their cost. A
single $ indicates the tool is relatively inexpensive to install. $$$$
indicates one of the most expensive tools. Cost effectiveness of
projects will be considered. Neighborhoods that want to use very
expensive tools may have to contribute a greater share of the cost of the
project.
The Fire Department, and other agencies with emergency vehicles, may
have problems with this mitigation tool. It is a physical tool that can
increase emergency vehicle response time to neighborhoods.
Consequently, if a neighborhood wants to use this tool, a Fire
Department representative must work with the neighborhood from the
begining of the project development process.
n — This is an experimental tool. It has not been used much in Boulder and
Vx_ the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Working Group is not 100%sure that
it will work in Boulder. This tool can be installed temporarily and
removed if it does not work.
The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Working Group thought this tool
v looked promising, and recommends trying it. Tools may be
recommended even though their application may be appropriate only to
a limited set of conditions and Boulder neighborhoods.
Consideration shoul;d be given to whether your proposed application of
theis tool will increase danger to pedestrians. Pedestrian symbol
without a circle/slash indicates the tool is a pedestrian amenity.
Consideration should be given to whether your proposed application of
this tool will increase the danger to bicyclists. Bicycle symbol without
a circle/slash indicates the tool is a bicycling amenity.
30
SPEED LIMIT SIGNS
Definition:
Signs that indrivers of the
maximum safe driving speed under
normal conditions.
e
SPEED
LIMITbs
5i
reff
moorary Best Used if: Don't Use N:
n be tried for six months to test • Clear need to inform • Neighborhood doesn't
ctiveness. drivers of the speed want the "visual pollution".
limit.
• Street Tvice• Benefits:
Negatives:
Any streets, but may be unnecessary on • Inexpensive. • Unattractive in
many low volume residential streets.
neighborhoods.
• Does not effect vehicle
speed.
Consideration:
• Posting of artificalty low speed limits will require constant enforcement and breed disrespect for
traffic control devices.
�-s�
..
NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED CONTROL PROGRAM
Defer
A neighborhood education
process in which neighbors
become more aware of the
specifics of their speeding
problems. Neighborhood
representatives are loaned
radar guns by the Police
Department, to monitor speed
and identify chronic speeders.
The City will then send letters to
offending drivers calling their
attention to their behavior and
requesting them to change it.
—Tem-ROW-81r. Best_ Used if.
Should be in place for two Donn
months or longer in order to • Neighborhood willingness to •
gain maximum educational • Participate. No willingness on the part
Most traffic is local traffic. °f the neighborhood to
benefit. participate.
• Neighborhood Speed
Watch has not yet been
attempted.
Streets: Benefits
More likely to be effective on • Ne atives:
local streets. Can effectively address • Not likely to be as effective
trafficproblems that are
caused by neighbors. on non-local traffic.
•
• May make neighbors feel
Can heighten general
awareness of neighborhood "spied on"by one another.
traffic concerns.
• Can serve to unify
neighborhoods.
• Can be a good first step
toward building consensus
on physical mitigation
measures.
ns ns:
• Participation in Neighborhood Speed Watch will be limited to two neighborhoods at a time.
• Training in use of the radar gun will be provided by the Police Department.
• Neighborhoods representatives will be asked to sign an agreement to take proper care of the
equipment and to use it only as specified by program guidelines.
a-s�
ss
NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION ISLAND SIGN OR OBELISK
Definition:
An island in the center of a
street that includes a monument
identifying a neighborhood and
marks the entrance to the '+
neighborhood or a sign, banner
or other structure that helps to
communicate a sense of
neighborhood identity. sz
��"
Temaorarv:
Can be temporary but removal '
unlikely. h _
-ti
ti
-.
,
Street Type: Works Best if Don't Use/f:
Collector street or local street • Neighborhood boundary •
neighborhood entrance off of definition is desired.
collectors or arterials.
Maintenance: Benefits: Negatives:
Depends on type of installation. • Alerts drivers that a change in •
their driving behavior is being
requested.
• Helps give neighborhood more
of a sense of identity.
• Allows neighborhoods creativity
and participation in design.
Considerations:
A neighborhood identification island is an entryway treatment that can be used most effectively in
conjunction with other tools, if speed reduction is desired.
s8
..
SPEED HUMPS
Definition:
Speed humps are wave-shaped
Paved humps in the street. The
height of the speed hump
determines how fast it can be BUMP
navigated without causing
discomfort to the driver or
damage to the vehicle.
Discomfort increases as speed
over the limit increases.
D RrPTI
ITMWny
4 ,,� - - ---- -
�N�✓ 1
FT
orary Best Used If.d humps are impractical to • The street has a Dont Use IFl on a temporary basis. • The street is on a major
documented speeding emergency vehicle route
problem.Tv= • °Soft°approaches haveand no reasonable
d humps are generally proven ineffective. • alternative is available.
ered local street tools. Steep grades.
ation on collector streetsto be very carefullyted.a_ Benefits:onstructed humps should • Neoatives.
maintain their shape for several travel over speed humpc. Few s
• Can increase voice and air
Years, however the striping P pollution , l the hump
P 9 with excessive speed more (however, less negative
associated with them must be than once.
maintained biennially. • "Self enforcing." impact than a stop sign).
• Relatively inexpensive.
Considerations:
a�sf
ss - ..
O
RAISED CROSSWALKS
De/inition:
A speed hump designed as a
pedestrian crossing.
— ———®— — — — ——— — ———
Temgorarv: Best Used N Dont Use
No. • High volume of • Important emergency vehicle
pedestrians. route.
• Vehicle speed is a
concern.
ALMLEWC Bene/its: Negatives:
Can be used on medium and • Effective speed control at • Negative impact on emergency
low volume streets. the installation. vehicles if on primary
• Excellent pedestrian emergency vehicle routes.
amenity.
Considerations:
• City will need to negotiate with RTD for acceptance of speed humps, raised crossings and
intersections on bus routes. Not immediately implementable on these streets, but expect to be
used in the future.
d 4td
CHOKERS: RAVEL BOTH WAYS
Definition:
Large Iamb chop-shaped
islands installed at the O ^I
intersection to reduce speed.
Two lanes of travel are
maintained, but lanes are I
narrow. Bike lanes are
maintained outside of the I
choker, on both sides. O
O
—
O
I�
Q i Q
Temp. Best For:
Chokers can be tried on a • NeDon_ 'tom
temporary basis for on ighborhood that desires • The street is a snow route.
months. significant slowing at an
intersection.
• Pedestrian safety concern
at the intersection.
• Bike safety concern at the
intersection.
Str�T=es- Benefits:
Chokers will work best on low to • Straight access for bikes. 0
eaatives:
medium volume neighborhood • Crossing distance is Snow removal is
streets. reduced for pedestrians. complicated, especially in
• Traffic is slowed at the the bike lanes.
Maintenance. intersection, possibly
Care needs to be taken by reducing accidents.
maintenance to keep snow out
Of the bike and ped lanes.
E
rations:
bike lanes and choker should be well marked.
bike lanes should be wide enough for bike trailers.
yr-�
..
TURN PROHIBITIONS
Fbaie
n:
arriers or signs
t Turn", "No Left
o Not
at prohibit aturningt. I
I
I
I �
I �
I
I �
I
I
I
Temoorarv: Best Used N: TQ�N:
Can be installed • Significant cut-through traffic. orhood unwilling to limit
experimentally or used • Need to eliminate two wayaccess.
during limited hours, such conflicts. opriate alternative
as rush hours or school
hours.
Street Tunes: Benefits: Negatives:
Local streets or major, • Reduces cut-through traffic in May increase trip length due to
paired arterials. neighborhoods. revised trip patterns.
Considerations.
ss
V ••
SEM!-DIVERTERS
Definiftion:
Physical blockage of one (Do not enter)
direction of traffic at one point
on an otherwise two way street.
The open lane of traffic is
signed "One way°, that is, traffic
from the blocked lane isnot i
allowed to go around the barrier
through the open lane.
in
- - -� a- - -
HV
I
I
I
Te�2r Best Used/f
Semi-diverters can be tried on a • Neighborhood has cut-
Donal/:
temporary basis. • No cut-through traffic.
through traffic, and there is • No good alternate route for
an appropriate alternative
route for blocked cut- diverted traffic.
through traffic.
Street Tvnes-
Benefits: Neoatfves
Better on low volume streets. • Do not present a significant • Compliance with semi-
obstacle to emergency diverters is not 100°/x.
vehicles. • May increase trip length for
• Good for limiting one-way some residents.
cut-through traffic.
• Can be designed to provide
two-way access for
bicycles.
Considerations:
If speed reduction is desired, additional tools should be utilized.
�-G3
LANE NARROWING
F
inition:ne physically narrowed to
to eleven feet, expanding
walks and landscaped areas,
adding medians, c. ans",
et
onstreet parking, etc.
Temnorarv: Best Used If. Don't Use Ih
Can be tried on a temporary • Excessive speed due • No possibility of eliminating
basis for 6-12 months. primarily to street width. on street parking.
• Inadequate right-of-way to
do a safe, effective
Street nmmBenefitstreatment.
:
Appropriate for most street types. • Good for pedestrians due to Negatives:
shorter crossing distance. • Can be dangerous for bikes.
Maintenance: • Slows traffic without
Landscape maintenance. (May seriously affecting
need to involve neighborhood emergency vehicle
participation.) response time.
rOPhysliEr
ations:
ne narrowing to slow cars, it helps to include visual distractions, such as bushes, trees,
rse markings, and other psycho perception techiques.
ease accident potential because opposing vehicle streams are brought closer together.
restrictions must be installed. Simply restriping streets is not effective.
�4
tkAP
EEO
==F��n
n
-- ---- - --- -- - -- - - -®--
9
Median at center of roadway
0?-,4r
I
� I
b I
1
r
I
� � I
1 .a
I�
9 I
f
d I
:,.
v
I
I
. I
I '
I
I
I
I
�I
I
I
I
I
I
d � d
i
a-6 6
PSYCHO-PERCEPTION
Definition:
Any material or message
placed around or in a street
that heightens driver
response or induces the
desired behavior. Example
is transverse markings
(striping)with inconsistent
spacing that gives the
illusion of increased speed.
Novelty signs and use of
landscaping are other
examples.
Street Tvae Best Used!f. Don't Use!f.
Can be tried on any type of • Neighborhood desire to t •
street, althougn not all them. try Specific technique has been
methods are appropriate to proven dangerous or
all streets. ineffective.
Maintenance: efts:
�-- Neaatives:
Depends on technique. Low • Gives the neighborhood an • Most
for signs, higher for psycho-perception
pavement markin sand opportunity to be creative with tools are not likely to be
9 their response to traffic effective in the long run,
landscaping. concerns. due to their dependence on
• Can be aesthetically pleasing to novelty.
the neighborhood.
ConsideEtionsl
It o imposycho-perception tools make driving fast on the street seem less safe, but that
they don' ncrease danger.
c2-47
-41
STOP SIGNS
Fused
al signs displaying
P°. Stop signs
signate the right
sections.
Temcoran Best Used/f•
Stop signs can be tried on a • An unusual) high on=Use if.•
temporary basis. Before the y Steep grades.
number of accidents • Insignificant traffic volumes.
signs are installed, the involvin right of way. •
Objectives for installation should • g g y Insignificant history of
be clearly defined. Atter 6 Significant cross traffic correctable accidents.
months, if the goals have been at the intersection. • Need and intention is for speed
met and the neighborhood still control.
wants the sign(s), the
installation can be made
permanent. If the objectives
have not been adequately met,
the signs will be removed.
Street es: Benefits:
Stop signs are Primarily used at • Mtives•
ry inexpensivfe.cut- • If there is not a significant
low volume street intersections • If t
amount ofo cross traffic at the
with high volume streets,or on
though traffic, stop signs intersection, compliance will
all four approaches of an might work as a
intersection with relative ual not be compelled. Cyclists and
volumes and/or a significant • Ins gnificant traffic Pedestrians relying on stop
correctable accident history, volumes. signs can be hurt, and
accidents may increase.
Maintenance- • Excessive use of stop signs
Low maintenance. renders them meaningless.
• Stop signs don't decrease
average speed.
• Increase noise and pollution.
Consider
• Most stop signs that are warranted for right-of-way control are already installed. NeighborhooJnot
can consider an appropriate use of stop signs as a possible mitigation tool in limited
circumstances, but widespread installation of stop signs for speed control is ineffective and will
be supported.
TRADITIONAL ENFORCEMENT
Definition:
Sporadic monitoring of
speeding and other �l
violations by police.
Police officers can come out .�
to a neighborhood for short y' •��
periods of time to issues
tickets. Additionally, police
officers can "take a
neighborhood under their r
wing",and monitor traffic on
a regular basis.
D
f
Temoorarv: Best Used If.
Enforcement is always • Don't Use If::
Y Excessive speed on a street • Locations where its
temporary. and there is an urgent need for
quick action. Physically impossible to pull
vehicles over• Neighborhood is undertaking a creating a hazard. ut
Speed Watch program, is using
the radar trailer or has newly
installed mitigation measures .
• Neighborhood is in design
Phase and needs interim
assistance.
Street D2M Benefits:
ora Negatives:
Enforcement can be • Temporary to good public
Performed Effect is not permanent.ormed on any street relations tool. • Enforcement is an
Logistics make some • Serves to inform public that
locations problematic or speeding is an undesirable expensive tool(currently
ineffective. mitigation can be behavior for which there are total cost recovery for
enforcement does not exist).
initiated. consequences.
[Con:sidlerations:
rcement should be regarded as supplemental to other measures, not the sole solution.
rcement should not be considered a permanent form of mitigation. Used as a "quick fix" until
permanent solutions can be developed and implemented.
42-41
ss
STREET CLOSURE
Definition:
Street closed to motor
vehicles using planters,
bollards, or barriers, etc.
Pedestrian and bike
access maintained.
1.
Temcorarv: Best Used If. Don't Use if:
Can be installed • Other mitigation devices, i.e.,
temporarily. • Residents of immediate and
speed humps, diverters would be adjacent neighborhood will
Street Tvicesinadequate. not support restricted
•
Low volume streets access.
where alternative access • Can not substantially,
to homes can be adversely impact
provided (i.e., by alleys) emergency vehicle
and a clearly more response time.
desirable and feasible • Boulder's 1989
route exists . Transporatation Master
Plan opposes street closure
unless extraordinary
circumstances exist.
• Conversion of street from
public to private requires
legal action; may need to
grant easements for utilities,
municipal services, etc.
Benefits: Negatives:
• Eliminates cut-through traffic. • May be perceived as
Maintenance: inconvenience by some
Landsca in neighbors and an
p g' unwarranted restriction by
general public.
E_�deration:
arge percentage of immediate neighborhood must want it. Adjacent neighborhoods must be
ing to accept diverted traffic.
= b
DIAGONAL DIVERTERS
Der'""
-
barrier
A placed diagonally
across a four legged
intersection, interrupting
traffic flow across the 8
intersection. These barriers
can be used to create a I
maze-like effect in a
neighborhood.
I
I
I
I • 'f
I
I �
I
I
Tempora
Best Used When:
Can be tried on a temporary • Cut-through traffic is the ant Use if:
basis for 6-12 months. No reasonable alternate
primary problem for the routes available for both
neighborhood. emergency response vehicles
and through traffic.
• Cut-through traffic is not a
Significant issue.
Stree_ t— T—y°es. Bei
Neighborhood (local) streets. • Practically eliminates cut- :e4atives•
through traffic. People can tum at higher
• Maintains continuous speeds because there is no
unless • opposing traffic.
routing opportunities
( May reduce emergency
a cul-de-sac or street
closure). routing opportunities.
• May increase trip length for
Considerations: some residents.
• These barriers should be traversable for bikes and pedestrians.
• Likely to increase traffic on adjacent streets, so should be considered only where appropriate
alternatives are available.
c2-7/
REALIGNED INTERSECTIONS
Definition:
Starting with a T intersection
of a side street into a larger
through street, the realigned I
intersection interrupts the
traffic flow on the larger
street by curving it into the
side street.
.00
Temoorarv: Best Used I1. Don't Use/f
Not feasible as a temporary • Enough traffic to • No level of additional traffic on
installation. reprioritize traffic flow. the side street is acceptable.
• Low volume street.
Benefits: Negatives:
• Slows traffic when • Much more expensive than a
realignment is significant. stop sign.
• May encourage increased traffic
volume on the affected side
street
• If not drastic enough,cyclists
and cars may ignore the stop
signs at the realigned
intersection.
FConsiderations:
Treatment is very expensive and probably the most appropriate tool only in rare conditions.
Q'QQ na
a
O
RAISED INTERSECTIONS
Definition:
A raised plateau of roadway
where roads intersect. The
plateau is generally about 4" I
higher than the surrounding
streets.
I
I
9
I
I
I �
I
I
I
I
n
Best For.
nsta: "ons of • Fj2on
tior High pedestrian volumes ergency vehicle
with significant safety
concerns.
• Significant, excessive
vehicle speed.
Benefits:
Neoatives:
high or low • Effective speed reduction, •
volume streets. better for emergency • Expensive.
vehicles than speed humps. for emergency vehicles.t as good as a flat eet
• Aesthetically pleasing if well
designed.
• Excellent pedestrian safety
treatment.
Considerations:
• Transit concerns will need to be identified and worked through.
� -73
ONE-WAY STREETS
Definition:
Self-explanatory.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - -
QED
1
Temvorarv: Best Used If. Don't Use lL
Can implement on • There's a need for parking on both sides • Generally need to provide
temporary basis (6 of a narrow street. one way streets in pairs,
mo.)to ascertain if • Pedestrian safety is a significant which is frequently not
benefits outweigh concern. possible in a neighborhood
disadvantages. setting.
Benefits: Negatives:
• Tend to be safer due to lack of friction • Can lead to increased
from opposing traffic flow. vehicle speeds.
• Can faciliate traffic flow through an area. • May result in longer trip
• Can open up narrow street for more length.
resident parking. • May increase emergency
• Increases pedestrian safety. response time.
• Maintain reasonable access for
emergency vehicles.
• Maze effect of one-way streets can
discourage through traffic.
Considerations:
�-7y
REALIGNED INTERSECTIONS
Definition:
Starting with a T intersection
of a side street into a larger
through street, the realigned I
intersection interrupts the I '
traffic flow on the larger
street by curving it into the
side street
do
Temgorarv. Best Used If: Dont Use if.
Not feasible as a temporary • Enough traffic to • No level of additional traffic on
installation. reprioritize traffic flow. the side street is acceptable.
• Low volume street.
Benefits: Negatives:
• Slows traffic when • Much more expensive than a
realignment is significant. stop sign.
• May encourage increased traffic
volume on the affected side
street.
• If not drastic enough, cyclists
and cars may ignore the stop
signs at the realigned
intersection.
E
siderations•Treatment is very expensive and probably the most appropriate tool only in rare conditions.
p�'�J
C
FOR TURN BARRIERS
Definition:
Traffic islands installed to
prevent or ensure certain p�
turning movements at an IVB I
intersection.
� r
i
s .
Temporary. Best For: Don't Use
May be tried on a termporary • Cut-through traffic. • Emergency response
basis for 6-12 months. access is unacceptably
hampered.
Street Types: Benefits: Negatives:
Primarily used to direct traffic off • Changes driving patterns. • May increase trip length for
of local streets. • May significantly reduce some drivers.
cut-through traffic.
Considerations:
• If speed reduction is desired, other tools would need to be installed.
a-�
$$—
$$$
TRAVERSABLE BARRIERS
Defin/tion: i
A barrier placed across any
portion of a street that is
traversable for bikes, I
pedestrians, roller bladers, A I
and emergency vehicles,
but not for other motor
vehicles.
1 I
I
1 I
I
I
Temc°ra^—r Best Used H: Don't Use!f.
Can be tried on a • Cut-through traffic on a •
No appropriate facility for
temporary basis for 6-12
street that should be low diverted traffic.
months. volume.
Street tvves• Benefits:
Low volume streets with • Neoatives.,
Reduces cut-through • If not enforced regularly, parked
cut-through traffic. traffic.. cars may block access.
Maintenance: • Depending on design, may be
Landscaping. subject to violation by
unauthorized vehicles.
• Altered traffic patterns may
increase trip length.
LConsiderations:
Diversion onto neighboring streets needs to be analyzed.
Cut-through traffic needs to be evaluated. .
4=2-7?
Decreases Reduce Increases—
Speed
-
Accidents vol.ume or Ped.
attly
Neighborh000d k, ..
Identification Island
School III Off Zones
�Pjacent to
schools
Mmi-
t.
Traffic Circles ;S�
Raised cr
Osswalk
Turn Prohlbiti
Traditional Enforcement
i
' .
).:.... •Y.. 1.x•.•1
- -• �. �'Traversable Barriers
,+�•G..et.C.�+i!:!%S!•S!u:�.:C%!:!.!.JCn}.',Zu'%t:t:6.'ti•? J ::?i1
Forced Turn l3arriers
Dla
Photographic Radar
Sto Sign
-------
�::•:•..
-M%1111103
? .•1 - - - � '.•�SKWiy:JJ�.M.•j �•b.at..{uttiu..�:.:J:.Ji..J ,�'��'.,�
EXHIBIT D
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: The Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Terry Sanville, 781-7178
4. Project'Location: The Chorro Area is a residential neighborhood generally bounded
by State Route 101, Santa Rosa Street (State Route 1), Foothill Boulevard, and the
lower slopes of Cerro San Luis Obispo.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works
Department, 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .
6. General Plan Designation: Most of the area is designated for low-density residential
use. Properties along affected segments of Foothill Boulevard are designated for
general retail and neighborhood commercial uses while Santa Rosa Street segments
are designated for office and tourist commercial uses.
The General Plan Circulation Element (adopted November 1994) identifies the Chorro
Areas as one of eight neighborhoods that warrant the preparation of a neighborhood
traffic management plan.
7. Zoning: The area is zoned consistent with Land Use Element designations.
8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not
limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site
features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The objectives of the Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan is to reduce traffic speeds
and levels within the Chorro Area to achieve the ADT and speed standards set by
San Luis Obispo's adopted Circulation Element.
To achieve these objectives the plan recommends that road humps, traffic circles,
stop signs, entry features, crosswalks and signage be installed in phases (and as
needed) at various locations along local and collector streets within the Chorro
Neighborhood. Changes would be made to the Chorro-Lincoln Street intersection
(northbound) and the Chorro-Foothill intersection (southbound) to discourage
through traffic. Traffic signals on Foothill Boulevard would be timed to provide more
green time for Foothill traffic. Traffic signals on Santa Rosa Street from Walnut to
Pismo would also be evaluated to see if timing could be changed to improve traffic
flow.
1
a- 7�
The proposed traffic calming facilities would be installed in phases over a one-year
period. The impacts on the facilities on traffic volumes, distribution, and speeds
would be monitored at various stages of the plan's implementation and adjustments
made to the design and location of facilities. The City would be responsible for
maintaining the facilities.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings):
The Chorro area is bounded by Cerro San Luis Obispo and residential areas on the
west, Foothill Boulevard and commercial areas on the north, Santa Rosa Street and
office and tourist commercial areas on the east, and Route 101 and residential/office
areas to the south. Santa Rosa Street, Foothill Boulevard, Route 101 and Cerro San
Luis Obispo are significant barriers that separate the area from surrounding land
uses. On the east, Stenner Creek also acts as a divide between residential and
office/tourist commercial areas.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement). None
2
a.8a
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially'Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
. ......................... ..... . .... ..........................................
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation: .
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X
will not be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
3
a-8�
January 23, 1996
�gna a Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager _Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Panted Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards(e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
4 4:2 M
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policiesT7 I I
X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
The area's streets are fronted by low density housing. The installation of road humps and stop signs in the area may
create additional traffic noise. However,this impact should be less than significant given the proposed design of the road
humps and their placement on the approaches to new stop-controlled intersections. Furthermore, overall noise exposure
to households along proposed traffic calmed streets may decrease with the decrease in traffic speeds and some reduction
in traffic volumes.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
5
a-JU'
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows?
X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
X
h) Expansive soils?
X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
6
a2�0
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lase Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements7
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
D Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting X
or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD
Environmental Guidelines)?.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
The installation of stop signs will generate additional pollutants at intersections that may effect adjoining residences.
However, given existing traffic volumes and potential reductions to these volumes, pollution concentrations are unlikely
to violate air quality standards leg. for CO concentrations).
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1 X
7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Changes to the Chorro-Lincoln Street intersection may incremental increase congestion during afternoon peak periods since
the left turn pocket at this intersection would be shortened. The duration and extent of this congestion is short lived and
is not significant. During non-peak hours, this change should have no effect on the operation of the Chorro-Lincoln
intersection. Streets should operate at levels of service (Los D or better) consistent with standards set by the Circulation
Element, although LOS standards only apply to arterial streets and not to collector streets such as Chorro and Broad
Streets.
The Plan encourages through traffic to use alternative routes other than streets in the Chorro Area. The extent of traffic
diversion caused by implementing the plan is unknown and is too speculative to determine at this point.
Other communities that have installed similar facilities (although not in the same configuration as shown on the plan)) have
experienced diversion of 5 to 25%,depending on the attractiveness of alternate routes. A diversion of 25% of the traffic
from Chorro Street to Santa Rosa Street would result in about 185-250 additional vehicles using that street at peak hour.
Based on a review of current traffic levels and capacities, this additional traffic will probably not cause traffic levels on
Santa Rosa to exceed Circulation Element Standards for level of service (LOS D). Intersections on Santa Rosa Street may
experience additional short-term congestion during am and pm peak periods (probably greater queuing on cross streets),
although the extent of potential congestion is unknown. The City's Circulation Element does not specifically set
operational standards for intersections.
The plan includes programs for monitoring traffic and congestion levels after traffic calming facilities are installed and
stipulates as part of Phase II and IV that the City will:
Adjust facilities as appropriate and correct all undesirable traffic redistributions.
This policy is intended to address inappropriate traffic redistributions within the Chorro Street area. However, it is broadly
written to enable the City to take corrective action if congestion levels on Santa Rosa Street become a problem as the
result of implementing the Chorro Area plan. Traffic redistributions that cause level of service to exceed LOS D on
affected links of Santa Rosa Street and Foothill Boulevard would be considered as "undesirable" since they would exceed
Circulation Element standards for traffic flow.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment))?
The traffic calming facilities will initially be installed in the roadways as "temporary facilities" using paint and plastic
pylons. As with other similar facilities in San Luis Obispo, some motorists will probably run into the plastic pylons until
they become accustomed to the facilities being present. The temporary facilities have been used at other locations in San
Luis Obispo. Experience has not shown them to constitute a significant hazard.
The function of the temporary facilities will be monitored and adjustments made to their design to mitigate any operational
problems (reference Phase II of the plan). The design of the facilities will be tested for about one year before any
permanent facilities are installed.
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
8
x44
1$sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No'
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS.. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
See Section 1.0 above.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? T X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
10
t� '�Q
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The draft Plan has been reviewed by Chief Neumann of the City Fire Department. The Chief has indicated that
implementation of Phase I of the plan does not create service responses concerns. However, the Chief expressed some
concerns about (1) the effects of the road humps on long-term maintenance of fire trucks, and (2) the effects of the
proposed stop signs in slowing emergency response—although City response standards (four-minute response to all urban
areas) should not be exceeded. Chief Neumann indicated a desire to have the opportunity to review and monitor the
incremental implementation of the plan to ensure that fire service and maintenance issues are addressed (see
recommended mitigation/monitoring measure). The Chief is willing to take a "wait and see" attitude concerning the plan's
impacts.
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
The installation of traffic circles and entrance features with landscaping will incrementally increase the City's maintenance
effort. The plan indicates that "interim" and "permanent" landscaping will be maintained by the City The cost of
maintenance will depend on the design of the facilities and is unknown at this time. The plan does not address the source
of dollars to support maintenance. (See Section 16.0 concerning "cumulative" impacts.)
e) Other governmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
FSto:r:m:water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lose Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
Initially,plastic pylons and paint will be used to define the proposed traffic circles and entry features. However, the plan
stipulates that these elements would be removed after about four months and replaced with interim landscaping and curbs.
Within one year of initiating implementation, permanent traffic circles and entry features would be constructed. Therefore,
the installation of plastic pylons is short-term and less than significant impact and replacement landscaping should improve
the aesthetics of the area.
c) Create light or glare? X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect.unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
12
f2��D
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
1S. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
The Chorro Area Traffic Calming Plan is the first plan of its kind to be considered for adoption by the City of San Luis
Obispo. The City's Circulation Element identifies seven other areas within the community where traffic management plans
should be prepared. Therefore,depending on the content of these plans and the facilities approved over time by the City,
the cumulative impact of maintaining them could be significant.
The Chorro Area Plan should include the following mitigation measure as part of Phase V implementation:
Estimate the cost of maintaining the proposed permanent traffic calming facilities, evaluate funding options, and
establish a strategy for paying for long-term maintenance.
It is anticipated that implementation of this mitigation measure may establish a maintenance funding strategy applicable
to other neighborhood traffic planning efforts.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
13 c
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEGA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094,
21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 General Plan Circulation Element (November, 1994), Figure #3, page 21.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1 Mitigation Measure: Fire Response: The City Fire Department should review the incremental implementation of
the plan to ensure that fire service needs are not impacted. Any significant changes to the plan's implementation
needed to address fire service concerns will be considered by the City Council for consideration.
Monitoring Program: The Fire Department will review the effects of the proposed traffic calming facilities on fire
service and vehicle maintenance during Phases II and IV of the plan's implementation. Corrective action will be
taken to address these concerns, as needed.
2 Mitigation Measure Maintenance of Public Facilities: Estimate the cost of maintaining the proposed permanent
traffic calming facilities, evaluate funding options, and establish a strategy for paying for long-term maintenance.
Monitorina Proaram: The Public Works Department will conduct this analysis and make recommendations to th,
City Council as part of implementing Phase V of the plan.
14
W .771
c
O e ' \ e o o \° \° \ \° \°
0 0 0 e o e
N N "N N ONO
2
X00 N w .•. 01. `S 00 V
W �a O 00 O\: 00 00 00: n+ h 00 00 D\ 00 00 ON O\ O C\ O\: 7 R Y
M N N N N N; M r. _N N N N N N N. M N N. M M M;
F in N !� Y ao N vj M Ov. O kn R. O h N 'O\: h oo
cN
N 0 DO O 00' O N:.:. R O� M: h 0\ b� V7 00: h
N .-r MJ. Op O
Go. .w .r O .�. N:
:'. cc
'< .::
�r
M h M: N 1A h' .. h :00: O OD O�. M O M Y R :�00 R O Y
crs
N fft
MTn
rA
: N IqN! N N M hMNOOO<;:
wl
.: _:
...1 ...... _
i
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O OO O O O O O O O O O O O
y V1 to 1n In V) IA RA V7 In 1!1 IA IA 1/1
1n b %O
N N N N N Ix ^
w0
V
Tr O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
In IA V7 M Iry to In 1/) V7 IA In In V7
w
M h M Y Y O O O O O O M M
N !7 M M ..y ...i
.-
>
Q
a
r�aQ z y v: w 3 v w 3 cd.: z W2 v'� v`
X.
Q y C
07 OJ O
F u
°''
a
N N Y h a0 00
F ..
so
o $ €
.. o E
W a
m U D w so
w m
a-f 3
so . ...... ......
IX
... .........
N In It 00 V
M 00 It
sn. kq :::f4
cv% eq
kdi tn tn:. �.o in
C2; in
C4 M eq r4 M en M..... .......
..........
... .......
.......... .......
tn CD ..ac] r; r4
00 tn
o, ,r ... cyk
H. kn en
Rn
kn r4..
tn eN 00 nn ..C. (n �4 ..7i 4 Go
Rn
...... .....
ch 00 Y
--r
IV A 0% =. In.
en G ::0%. ON a cc
Go We r4 0 C�.
It 00
0 N.
N (in
....... ...
to tn WE tll M In . . Nin .0.
.... .......
N f-4
... .......
.... .........
cc at
...... tn tn tn in
...... ....
en
N M N 1n
mm
::c
..0 Z rA vsW2 ch rn
......... ......
tn Ne4 eq No
..........
.: ...
N ....
Y
....... .. .. ..
co
PQ
I V
Y
.N
5�
,V
N
O
•y
W
CIO.
C_
Cd
� O
O y
U
� C
F �
� o
y
C6
U =
W �
O O
� U
7 W
O O
M N
w
� C
r
O. y
Q T
y � ani
m O
C ,9
y rA V
C �.+
O O
i W
ccy
N � �
1
L+ N
C C U
C Q O
R � N
S O �
U y
Y U N
to
Y
y
R y '�
� C m
C O O
O N
U .`o �
'• N
v � .
N
Nt
01
oi : ac a
Go:< v � vi T v� tn in M
cc M N N:: N N M -.M". M M M.:
it Op::
N n:' O 1n Th Oo V7 ,. In O h N �.
y :p m o oo;: n a .c ro o h ": T in
N.. N .� M:> O r+ N.: 7 to O.' �O gyp :N b
01'. to T
L
�O n M:.; Q1 T M; O In
7 to O b O 00
O'.a O M ^',: N kn h:: M n :0:: 0o O > 00 C, �o NO.
CN
cp O O O O O O O O
Rn O O O O O O O O
.�-� •�-� •�-� •�-� � � •�-� ti .moi
FI1�+�y/ L7
O 0 b b
U N N
�W
W y
S tn O O O O O O
in to �n �n to in
� Z
a N N O O M M M M M M
O A O O !9 M
h,ry
r+l
U
o e o 0
F N O Oe\0 N C C C o e \ C C
1n In T �O In M V7 kn
Aj
F+1
h/.�.Q .Im
cc on
'O
W N N N N M M
0
N a od
W A ? a a
� .,
CQ U U
H v v v
R
d
e A
�-fL
M
O�
Co.
M [� t+1 01 eq le go to N N V7
00 T 000 M O
a
w
w
r •� 01 00 N N 00 M t, N
to IV IV to 1n V to v W) R to v kn le In in V
ge
W
F
F
W
N N W4 e4 N 00 0\N O 000 M „Ny ON M N
00 le O t� M M t- O in 00 O a O
to to IV `7 V1 W) 'ef R le IV I' M t` to 1n to \O t- to to
COD
con z Z 0 z m z z W z W z vA z W
U " O
O
F
M Q 0\0 0`0 Ot z z Qt T O� N N N1 en to to 00
cz O\ 0\ O�
3t O� 0. .r .� to to „may ti ti M M en Cf M try 01 O� ti ti
W
a
ca
F
.d
�
C p
v N N N M :N IfJ N N N: M N N .
Ifi
C� wj
v�
oo N' M � a\
M : G n
. G .� o oNo '7 °; .r a vj oo o .o
o0 .. N Q a0 ��, O� M.
h O� 00 'r V 7 h O r r1 O M
gz
L
w
y In 1!1 II1 1!7 is : to 1/j VO7 to
.fl W i: L C
� F
voi voi voi inE InMvoi 4n
Irld
7
Gi� N N N N
. e e ! Q e e e e
s ko -r
Q
.....
.L W.
C.
CN I�t
r 00 .z It
r r 0a0 000
_ w
a
aj
>e z
a e
v
\D Z
DM o e.: tn a er
u F e r oo
N vs r M
voi voi
o 0 0 0
W M M
E-�
W
o 0 0 0
Z E o
N
0 0 0
y
I N
FSI ' a ?
►� W -.
A o
ONG F" .. rL� rr. o,
zd
N N
M
O
w
J Q Q
Cq
� a,
RESOLUTION NO (1996 Series) EXHIBIT F
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING THE CHORRO AREA NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Circulation Element calls for the preparation of
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans for various residential areas to protect these areas from
intrusive traffic problems; and
WHEREAS, the Chorro Street area is one of the seven residential neighborhoods
identified by the Circulation Element as warranting the development of a traffic management plan
(reference Figure #3, Page 21); and
WHEREAS,in August, 1995, residents of the Chorro Area requested and the City Council
directed the City staff to work with the residents to develop a traffic management plan for the
Chorro Area and return with a proposal by January 1, 1996; and
WHEREAS, interested Chorro Area residents formed a design group that sponsored a
neighborhood workshop to define area traffic problems, prepared a draft plan, reviewed the plan
with area residents at a second workshop, held various neighborhood meetings and amended the
draft plan in response from public input, and submitted.a final draft of the plan to the Public
Works Department for processing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the final draft of the
Chorro Area Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan, and has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental
determination made by the Community Development Director and has incorporated mitigation
measures into the plan to address areas of potential significant impact identified by the Director.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
1. Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Chorro
Area Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan by the Community Development
Director.
2. Council hereby adopts the Chorro Area Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan.
3. Copies of the Chorro Area Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan will be distributed
to City departments and made available to the public at the Public Works
Department and City Clerk's offices.
a2-/�C�
Page 2 -- Resolution No. (1996 Series)
On motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1996.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
by Assistant City Clerk Kim Condon
APPROVED:
PI, City Attorney, Jeffrey Jorgensen