HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1998, 1 - NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (NTM) PROGRAM AND GUIDELINES council a ►,-qg
j acEnda Repot
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Al Cablay,Public Works Manager
Deb Larson, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT(NTM)PROGRAM
AND GUIDELINES
CAO RECOMN ENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution adopting Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines as proposed.
2. Direct staff to bring back to the City Council a report on the Neighborhood Management
Program and any recommended modifications to the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Guidelines after 18 months of implementation.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In December 1996, the San Luis Obispo City Council directed the Department of Public Works
to prepare guidelines for managing vehicle traffic in residential areas. To help with this work,
the Department formed an ad hoc committee of San Luis Obispo residents supported by City
staff. In December 1997, the committee completed the draft Neighborhood Traffic Management
Guidelines (Exhibit A).
The stated purpose of these Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Guidelines is to maintain
and improve the quality of life in San Luis Obispo's residential areas by reducing problems
associated with motor vehicle traffic. The Guidelines apply to:
• Residential Local streets
• Residential Collector streets
• Residential Arterial streets
The Guidelines have two main components: The NTM Process, and the NTM Tool Box. The
process leads neighborhoods and staff in a series of steps toward implementation of a traffic
management plan while the tool box provides various means of traffic management that, taken
together, form the physical elements of the plan.
A key issue identified was the funding methodology used to implement traffic management. In
other cities where traffic management was found to have the.success, citizens of the benefiting
neighborhood participate in funding of the improvements. Thus, the Guidelines propose the
funding of the NTM facilities to be the shared responsibility of the City and study area
households or property owners.
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 2
Staff suggests implementation of the Guidelines as proposed, with an initial 18 month trial
period provided to ascertain their validity. After the trial period, staff will report back to the City
Council on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and provide any recommended
modifications.
DISCUSSION
Background
San Luis Obispo has already successfully implemented traffic management devices at various
locations throughout the City. Examples of devices include speed humps, the raised school
crosswalk and median planter on Augusta Street at Sinsheimer School, Ramona Drive bulb-outs,
a raised marked crosswalk west of Broad Street, the Broad Street speed humps, and the Marsh
Street `'make-over" including bulb outs and marked crossings of colored textured pavement. On
the other hand, the Council has also been involved in the controversy related to Chorro Street
speed humps and traffic circles. Due to the "Chorro" experience, the City Council, in December
1996, directed the Department of Public Works to prepare guidelines for managing vehicle traffic
in residential areas.
Staff was directed to develop a formal set of guidelines that would provide direction to staff and
community residents on roles and responsibilities, anticipate outcomes, and include notification
requirements, consensus building, required levels of support, financial responsibilities, and other
related topics. Staff researched different cities and counties for various criteria and
methodologies for Neighborhood Traffic Management. To help with this work, the Department
also formed an ad hoc committee of San Luis Obispo residents supported by City staff. The
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines document is in response to this Council direction.
The ad hoc committee included residents living throughout the City. Special acknowledgment
goes to the committee members. The committee members included: Charlie Herrera, Laguna
Lake area; Bernard Hartley, Meadow Park neighborhood; Betsy Umhofer, vicinity of Johnson
Avenue; Scott Eades, Sinsheimer region; Leo Pinard, old town; Naoma Wright, Foothill area;
Stephanie Valliere, Ferrini neighborhood; Paula Carr, Hathway neighborhood; and Cydney
Holcomb, Monterey Heights. City staff included Wendy George, Administration; Rob Bryn,
Community Development; Captain Cliff Chelquist and Sergeant Bud Silva, Police Department;
Spencer Meyer and Captain Tom Zeulner, Fire Department; and Al Cablay, Tent' Sanville and
Deb Larson,Public Works.
The committee was charged with the mission of developing guidelines for the City Council's
consideration, which could be used by residents throughout the City to manage vehicular traffic
in their neighborhoods. The `kick-off' meeting was held June 18, 1997. At this meeting the
committee identified neighborhood traffic concerns. Between August and December 1997, the
committee met about every two weeks to review technical information, discuss various
neighborhood traffic management topics, and help with the development of the Guidelines.
Committee decisions regarding items such as types of devices and activities, programs, and the
process were made by consensus.
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 3
The committee recommended that treatment in any neighborhood should be: a) designed to
accommodate bicycles and pedestrians; b) reviewed by the transit operator if along a bus route;
and c) meet current emergency vehicle response time standards. The final document consists of
two major elements: the process to achieve neighborhood traffic management and the tools to
use to effectively manage the traffic.
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Process
The Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Process separates the program into small-scale
problems and large-scale problems. Small scale problems are typically those where solutions can
be carried out in a relatively short period of time - as is done by staff today. Examples of small
scale problems might include posting of speed limit signage, having landscape trimmed to
improve visibility, installing curve warning signage or school signage, or reviewing stop sign
warrants. An example of a large scale problem might be traffic speeds or volumes which are
excessive along one or more street corridors or concerns along Residential Arterial Streets.
These larger scale problems will require an area-wide approach, providing the opportunity to
involve residents, land owners, and motorists driving through the area.
It is anticipated solutions to large scale problems, by their very nature, will take time. The
Guidelines identify a multi-step process in developing solutions as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure #I- Neighborhood Traffic ManagementLai ge Scale Problems
The Process
Multi-Step Pirocess .
Descrl`tion-ofProcess.
1) Resident contacts First a resident contacts the Public Works office. Then to validate that
the Public Works there is agreement among neighborhood residents that a problem exists,
Office at least two other households along the street corridor are to submit
letters of concern or sign a petition.
2) Transportation If the concern in validated; the Transportation Staff will review the
Staff will review the traffic conditions in the field to define the area that is experiencing the
traffic conditions in problem(s). A brief report will then be prepared by staff presenting the
the field results of the field work and conclusions concerning the presence or
absence of a large-scale NTM problem. This report is submitted to the
initial households raising the concern.
3) Ask area When the initial households are in favor of proceeding, the area
households if they are households within the proposed study area will be asked if they are in
in favor of the favor of the preparation of an NTM Action Plan for their neighborhood-
preparation
eighborhoodpreparation of an At least 25"/o of all households in the study area are to support the
NTM Action Plan preparation of a plan.
4)Neighborhood If support is obtained; an ad hoc Neighborhood Action Team will be
Action Team would formed with the goal to develop equitable and affordable solutions to the
be formed traffic problems in the study area. The Neighborhood Action Team may
consider less costly initial activities to solve the area problem(s), such as
placement of the speed trailer, a Neighborhood Watch Program,
pavement markings,ora ro riate signage.
/3
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 4
5)Development of If problem(s) remain, the Neighborhood Action Team may prepare an
Draft NTM Action NTM Action Plan. Once developed, the NTM Action Plan will be
Plan distributed to all study area property owners and households along with
notice of a community meeting. The availability of the draft NTM
Action Plan, and the community meeting will be published in the
Telegram-Tribune newspaper with the general public invited to
attend. The Neighborhood Action Team will be the sponsor of the
community meeting with Transportation Staff making the arrangements.
6)Final Draft NTM With consideration of community input, a final draft plan will be
Action Plan prepared by the Neighborhood Action Team and distributed to all
distributed to all households and property owners. A vote to approve the draft NTM
households and Action Plan will require a 51% support of the study area's
property owners households if improvements can be funded through available means, or
60%** support of the study area's property owners that return
ballots if an assessment district process is proposed.
7) Final Draft NTM If support is obtained, the final draft NTM Action Plan will be
Action Plan will be submitted to the City Council and the Council may consider adoption;
submitted to the City
Council
8 Funding This is a key issue and is discussed elsewhere in this report.
9) NTM Facilities With City Council approval, the Department of Public Works will
design,installation administer the design and installation of the proposed facilities and
and monitoring monitor their effectiveness.
At any time, the Director of Public Works may order modification or
removal of an approved NTM device when the Director determines the
device is creating a hazardous condition.
** It should be noted that the Guidelines require the support of 70% or more of the study area's
property owners. Based on further research into the requirements for assessment districts under
Proposition 218 (the criteria used by the committee to set this standard) staff is now
recommending that the requirement be reduced to 60% of the study area's property owners that
return ballots.
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Toolbox
A Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) "Tool' is a physical device (such as a speed hump
or traffic circle) or an activity (such as speed enforcement) that alters the driving behavior of
motorists. The Guidelines identify various types of NTM tools that may be used in San Luis
Obispo to resolve or reduce NTM problems. To match the appropriate tool or combination of
tools to an NTM problem, the toolbox has been arranged into "drawers" based on the primary
purpose of a particular device.
The drawers in the toolbox consist of the following:
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 5
• The Speed Control Drawer
• The Volume Drawer
• The Safety Drawer
• Other Complementary Tools
Funding-Strategy
The Guidelines identify the funding of NTM facilities to be the shared responsibility of the City
and study area households or property owners based on a City funding allowance formula
($140/household), beyond which the costs would be shared between the City and the study area
households or property owners up to a maximum amount($10,000)per NTM project.
This funding formula was arrived at after lengthy discussions by the committee members. The
consensus of the committee members was as follows:
-F dre #2 °:Neighborhood Traffic Management
The a Fundin S(rate _
• Basic"No The funding formula dollar amount is based on basic "no frills"
Frills" improvements within a neighborhood. The formula will allow City
$140/household funding to be tied to the size of the study area and will not penalize large
Funding areas. The $140/household figure is based on an example utilizing 100
Formula households, 1128 linear meter roadway with stop signs at one
intersection and road humps every 122 meters, approximately 1 per
block, including striping and advance warning signs, at a total cost of
$13,800 divided by 100 households,rounded to $140/household.
• Maximum A maximum cap is requested to allow more projects to go forward -
Amount of spreading the funds throughout the community rather than on one
$10,000/Pro'ect project.
• Funding For those projects where the cost of the NTM facilities exceed the
Exceeding funding formula amounts (example: enhancements proposed such as
Maximum benches, landscaping, irrigation, tile boarders, neighborhood entry
Amount signage) the committee felt the neighborhood should contribute to the
project funding.
Funding strategies may include,but are not limited to:
1) Study area households organize fund raising activities
• Advantage — no administrative costs, quick for
neighborhoods to implement
• Disadvantage -- may not be preferred method for higher
cost facilities
I J
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 6
2) Establishment of a Benefit-Assessment District
• Advantage — could be alternative for implementation of
higher-cost NTM projects
• Disadvantages — Council must review on a case-by-case
basis; likely high administrative costs associated with
levying and collecting assessments (Prop. 218), increasing
the cost of the project; and will take longest time to
implement(as a District)
3) Establish Municipal Code provisions that would enable the City to
pay for the installation of NTM facilities then assess individual
property owners as part of their tax bill, similar to sidewalk funding
under Municipal Code Chapter 12.
• Advantages — could be alternative for implementation of
higher-cost NTM projects
• Disadvantages — Council must review on a case-by-case
basis; will require inclusion of administrative costs,
determination of interest rate, term, method of collection,
etc., increasing cost of project; not ready for immediate
implementation, as it will require Municipal code
provision processing.
• Request for Projects requesting City funding contribution above $10,000 would be
Funding presented through the 2-year budget cycle to be prioritized along with
Exceeding other capital projects. These projects would be brought forward only
Maximum after an NTM Action Plan had been adopted. An example of these
Amount projects might be a Large Scale Project along a Residential Arterial
Street which might include curb extensions (bulbouts), and a landscaped
center median barrier.
• On-Going The City would pay for on-going maintenance of NTM facilities in
Maintenance by public right-of-ways or easements
City
Program Administration
The San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works will be responsible for administering the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines. This program will become one of many
elements to the City's Working to Improve Neighborhoods (WIN)program.
Further Review by City Council
Because this is a new document and because many of the suggestions within the Guidelines will
be unfamiliar to the community, staff is suggesting implementation of the Guidelines as
1-6
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 7
proposed, with an 18 month trial time period, after which a report will be prepared for Council
review and comment on any recommended modifications.
CONCURRENCES
• The committee, consisting of community members and staff from the Police, Fire, Public
Works, and Community Developments, agrees with the recommendations by consensus,with
the exception of member Pinard.
• The Community Development Department has determined that the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Guidelines do not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) and is exempt from further environmental review.
ALTERNATIVES
• Take no action. Based on prior experiences with attempts to implement NTM programs,
staff believes that there is a strong need for standardized guidelines to be in place and does
not recommend this alternative.
• Adopt with modifications as identified by the City Council.
• Return to the Committee. The Guidelines were developed by an ad hoc committee which
spent numerous hours researching, understanding and recommending the information
contained in the Guidelines This option is recommended if significant modifications are
proposed..
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: NTM Guidelines,Public Review Draft, February 1998 (Council only. Copy
available in City Clerk's Office.)
Exhibit B: NTM Program, draft brochure
Council Agenda Report—Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 8
FISCAL IMPACT
The City's budget currently identifies $ 40,000 per year to be utilized for NTM activities.
The Guidelines propose:
• Similar funding levels in future years for basic "No Frills" projects. Additional costs to be
shared between the City and the households or property owners. The City's maximum
contribution per NTM project would be$10,000.
• Large Scale Projects which may request additional City contributions, would be funded
through the 2-year budget cycle.
• On-going maintenance of improvements within the City's right-of-way or within easements
would be provided by the City.
144
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT(NTN)GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on December 10, 1996 the City Council directed its Transportation Staff to prepare
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM Guidelines to establish and organize an equitable method of
pursuing neighborhood traffic management goals of the Circulation Element;and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works organized an ad hoc committee of neighborhood
residents to provide input into the development of NTM Guidelines;and
WHEREAS, the committee met approximately every two weeks between August and December
1997 to review technical information, discuss various neighborhood traffic management topics, and help
with the development of this document; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that the adoption of these
Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines does not constitute "a project" and is therefore exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1: The Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted for immediate implementation.
On motion of ,seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted on this day of ,1998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST APPROVED
City Clerk ty om y Je ey rgensen
i:Council Agenda RepwuWM Council Resolution
/—V
� r
1yQ o y. O
a
n ems, ov � ` a g` � '<' ° ° m
rc,Jj C., - n :z- Z t - O n •. 1 '� a tj 0 Z;
.�Ei-
.
CA
, Z a a y " 5 e� A mcc rz- a y y ee
tT.a'
SQ. t0 ` O A.. is Q fC n " a _
Ln sz
Ct
o a n A o0 0
J O� VI A W N i•+ b v�
� e
o? o Q � 0 3 Y w •p w
CD m
�- - " g
7' m P V Q. 3 »v o
w COD-
Son. S w y G _ w O O O C n. -e O O
CD
CD ow a y r >
0
o. :o o 4 s In
z 93
In
�.• �• Cn' O •, .O ? -, O 7• a O y y O y OQ 2 S v m
CD = N C O VJ CD '.� C1 ;L "y E O y
c w o a y a n 'o000
O CL w w y w 'o ° S O y C a,o w ar �. to
0 w s .. n 0 o cD •o e o a co n m = s ^ o _ o
'LA, O S w O• w N d ^ CD Op O A
p CT O CD w m O w d '=p Z:4 7 C N y rn
r r —
C5 a
so
O �D w�
rq
Ind we
O b r T r V A crl
1CD n *
Y.� O r/�
Wo
14
I 1 O
9 ZISIHX3
to v
0 to
i U y iL r O J _
1
to ILI
O
0 LU
4 gym..
— r >N O < — r , y U
to
to y
O er r �,` N>\ ua
3 O p >
f/O1 VC1 N _—• mR ^O
to
... aU= C N •T• 'rV QOR V VO 0
m ° �-. 3 '
O Cm Eto C
Q •LU
ye=Vu
O y _
m L U p •U+ 7 L c 'O = H ..°-. m 7 C. ^ — p U 00 U N N U
O U >
ope0
> ¢ U >a N m
smom
ILI
Qym smEeC`
u aavUto
u
X o L
U ° a pQ ' p
C i o T ooo
0. N oo uro .h suau u C4 E
hO mG o
C i ° up — G./
to
19
0 C6
to
o10 c o` c 0 '5 °m V $ 3 E
m CIO mO N UO7OL L - = C
m
IRO 0
— E o.° E
'� '� u 'y •-° o u
m m c o vii m `' o ff Q N .E e e c o Q ' d
.. y °
h .:G e> m u a vCC cc to N
— > p N ' 0 C* E
>yaeu € ° o 0 mOQ � � pI yyy =
ppy $c
0.
C i 0 $ r .y C C O .D °' C E a
a °' p v o '0. u 010 'm v as a m i i
d oe u o = a = E o f u m o ° E - r o- e
U Er 3v H H ha ams av2s OF aina [� Q 3 p y ?
cc E
'F�m°5�rrmauNar m. �uV u F�c- UFv0o>p
m °' 0Y0 = .c 'dNHNahN-cN�m•cac°-. u a Y, m i oauo po0c.y�'7oo` Hs_ crep
� a = oE -0 0 u im�c�symeo Qu7Vo oE0 Eam Lr_uyuN
=uNEamuatoL aa 3 E0 0. •psL m aus To0
v -- .0ma `o o a
` N o ' `dca6A ° oco 0 u s_amoN3-
+u
MO
hEe°q
eo o 12 ".s
3 !
0
to
CI VN
— 10 u L u O O N
m .S=> vs = �c
to ,0 >m ato°Oe ouwoa >o° 3 u o
° O �s Ocmudi
to
u ep=
CIO
cc
•c- t3>` N O ci >10u � L
>s o ° aE N H y°o uu oep_Oe
GipLc e a x
V O p
V y N � 6/ = •O C U
L°
L 00 C to
G
•5UCR
v 'O .0 0 '° $—p°p
C3 yE
•�p
LJV
e E a
O '5 E L co= to T WV A7 :? p C6 -a N U U
w U 0 0 �' O m d L. 0 V1 0 N C L y > r\ y r
E V O
h L L O.. y 3 N `� cd 0L ° V m L J
7
R sa uLooe °
C e ' ooa5 0 = 3h y a ma e,, .s-u v uto
o Ca o
cc u EN
y
o
0. > = a L v y
.2
�qq W _a o as y c .o° E c m 5
ow-
co
79
■. ` u C p <+ �+ to
o _+ C o O o` G g N s ° " p ` •> E u Q
F w � ._ F m a� FSO cn 0. CE 3 3 y tiS .m '� O> v` E5 � a