HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/1998, 3 - CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (NTM) GUIDELINES council M fimD' Jme2,1998
j acEnaa uEpoRt °®"mb" 3
C I TY O F SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Wor
Prepared By: Terry Sanville,Principal TransportationPlanner$
SUBJECT: Continued consideration of adopting Neighborhood Traffic Management(NT11V
Guidelines
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving Neighborhood Traffic Management (1VTM Guidelines to
include amended provisions as recommended by staff; and
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 observing the program's implementation.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The draft Neighborhood Traffic Management(NTM Guidelines were published in February 1998
and considered by the City Council on April 7, 1998. Since February, a number of issues have
been identified. This agenda report summarizes each issue and presents staff recommendations for
addressing each of them;recommendations are summarized below:
• The City should continue to pay for actions that address"normal safety problems." When there
are questions about what constitute normal safety problems versus NTM concerns,the Director
of Public Works should decide. Any continued disagreements should be resolved by the City
Council as part of the NTM process.
• Residents living along all Residential Arterial streets should not be required to pay for NTM
projects along these streets.
• NTM proposals for Broad Street between South and High Streets should involve the
preparation of an Action Plan that is supported by study area households. Proposals along other
Residential Arterial streets should follow a more abbreviated planning process.
• Traffic signals should be considered on Residential Arterial streets when traffic conditions meet
wan-ants set forth in the Caltrans Traffic Manual.
• Removing curb parking and installing landscaped parkways and overlaying a street with
rubberized asphalt should be included in the "NTM toolbox" for Residential Arterial streets.
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 2
• Residents living along Residential Collector and Residential Local streets should help pay for
NTM projects. The proposed funding formula shown in the draft NTM Guidelines should be
simplified so that 50% of all costs that exceed the funding allowance provided by the City is
covered by neighborhood residents,while the remaining 50%is covered by the City.
• The NTM guidelines should continue to identify"Benefit Assessment Districts" as a financing
option.
• Other minor wording changes are suggested to clarify various provisions in the NTM
Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
The City Council received public testimony and considered the draft NTM Guidelines on April 7�.
The primary focus of the Council's two hour discussion was the funding of NTM activities. After
motions to resolve the funding issue failed to achieve a majority vote, the Council continued its
consideration of the guidelines until the next available meeting when all five members could attend.
The following paragraphs address the key issues raised at the April 7' meeting and received
through public contacts with the Public Works staff.
Issue #1: Should neighborhood residents living along a street have to pay for solutions to
normal safety problems?
Staff Recommendation: NO. Normal safety problems are addressed by the City's current
traffic management program. Examples include problems with stopping distances, sight
distances and abrupt grade changes. Concerns for speeding traffic may be considered a
normal safety problem where there is a history of collisions, accidents involving pedestrians
or bicyclists, or where the roadway cannot safely accommodate all intended users. Traffic
conditions that "feel uncomfortable" to residents probably do not constitute a normal safety
problem. However, these concerns may be addressed through the NTM program with the
cost of solutions being shared, depending on their location.
Changes to the Draft Guidelines: Include the following language in the"General Scope"
section(Page 7,left column):
Solutions to "normal safety problems" are addressed by the City's trafc management
program and are paid for by the City. When there is a question about what constitutes
a normal safety problem versus a NTM problem, the Director of Public Works will
decide. Where disagreement continues, the City Council will resolve the issue as pat
of the process described in these guidelines.
Issue#2: Should residents living along Residential Arterial streets be required to help pay
for NTM activities along these streets?
Staff Recommendation: NO. Most vehicles that use these streets do not come from
households that live along them. Therefore, if there are traffic problems, the City should pay
for facilities that eliminate or reduce them where feasible. The financing of an NTM project
on a Residential Arterial street should be determined at the time that it is considered by the
City Council.
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 3
Changes to Draft Guidelines: Amend the second paragraph on Page 23 to state e
following:
Traffic management proposals along all Residential Arterial Streets will be paid for by
the City.
Issue #3: Should the development of traffic management proposals along all Residential
Arterial Streets be accomplished in the same way?
Staff Recommendation: NO. The adopted Circulation Element designates six street
segments as Residential Arterials:
Designated Residential rteriaStreets
California Boulevard (northot Taft Street)
Johnson Avenue (south of Pi-s-m-o-St—re-eit)
T Grand Avenue(north ot MillStreet)
-S-outh Street(Broad to ee ee treet
Foothillo evar west ot Broadtreet
ro treet(south to PismoStreet)
Of these six streets, the first five provide internal access to nearby residential areas, typically
have four traffic lanes, but do not themselves function as part of a residential neighborhood.
Also,the land use pattern along these streets varies from the more traditional pattern of well-
defined yards with dwellings oriented toward the roadway. Given the physical
characteristics of these corridors, staff recommends that the abbreviated traffic management
process presented in the draft guidelines and repeated below be used:
In contrast, the segment of Broad Street identified above possess more of the traditional
neighborhood elements such as a narrower street and fronting dwellings with well-defined
yards. Along this corridor, the width of the street is less of a deterrent to interaction between
area residents. Therefore, given this character, staff recommends that the residents along
Broad Street and thus residents of the "Old Town Neighborhood" be more involved in
selecting and agreeing on the content of a plan for addressing traffic problems.
To implement this recommendation, residents along Broad Street should be included in the
planning process for the "Old Town Neighborhood" and be required to follow the NTM
process described in the draft guidelines for Residential Collector or Residential Local
Streets. However, the funding of traffic management solutions (the City pays) and the types
of devices eligible for consideration (shown in Figure #2) would be the same as for other
Residential Arterial streets.
Changes to Draft Guidelines: On Page 22, beginning after the first sentence under the
section entitled"So What Can Be Done?,"replace the paragraphs with the following:
Residential Arterial streets are intended to enable access from one part of the community to
another. To address traffic management issues along these types of streets (identified
below) concerned residents should review options for NTM activities shown in Figure #2
and contact the Transportation Staff. The staff will work with the concerned residents to
establish a feasible course of action if one exists.
33
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 4
California Boulevard(north of Taft Street)
Johnson Avenue (south of Pismo Street)
Grand Avenue (north of Mill Street)
South Street(Broad to Beebee Street)
Foothill Boulevard(west of Broad Street)
One Residential Arterial street (Broad Street, South to Pismo Street)possesses many of the
attributes that are found in traditional neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo, such as a
narrower roadway fronted by dwellings with well-defined front yards. To address traffic
management issues along this street, concerned residents along this street and in the "Old
Town Neighborhood" should contact the Transportation Staff and follow the planning
process summarized on pages 20 and 21 of these guidelines..
Issue #4: Should the NTM Guidelines include traffic signals as a tool for addressing
Neighborhood Traffic Management(NTM)issues?
Staff Recommendation: YES, but only on Residential Arterial streets. Among other
considerations, staff uses the "warrant system" included in the Caltrans Traffic Manual to
determine when a traffic signal might be justified. Staff recommends that where an
intersection involves a designated Residential Arterial street and where traffic warrants are
met, installing expensive traffic signals as part of the NTM program may be considered.
However, its important to note that traffic signals are expensive to install and costly to
maintain. They do not provide the panacea for most traffic problems commonly identified by
neighborhood residents.
Traffic signals should not be considered as an NTM tool on Collector or Local streets where
traffic volumes are lower, conflicts at intersections are less significant,and problems may be
solved with less-expensivemeasures.
Changes to Draft Guidelines:
• Amend Figure 42 on page 27 to include Traffic Signals in"The Safety Drawer,"and
• Include language that limits the consideration of traffic signals only at intersections on
Residential Arterial streets when traffic conditions meet warrants set forth in the Caltrans
Design Manual.
Issue #5: Are there other NTM activities that should be considered along Residential
Arterial Streets that are not currently listed in the guidelines?
Staff Recommendation: YES. In addition to the inclusion of traffic signals(see Issue#4),
staff believes that the following additional tools should be included in Figure 42:
Curb Parking Removal and Landscaped Parkways. By removing curb parking (which may
be only occasionally used) and installing a landscaped parkway, a more extensive buffer
might be provided between adjoining dwellings and traffic. Landscaped parkways can
improve an area's overall residential character without decreasing the traffic carrying
capacity of the roadway.
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 5
Rubberized Asphalt Overlays: By paving Residential Arterials with rubberized asphalt, road
noise can be decreased by 5dBA±when compared with standard asphalt paving. Thus,these
types of overlays can enhance the overall quality of residential areas without decreasing the
traffic carrying capacity of roadways.
Changes to the Draft Guidelines: Modify Figure#2 on Pages 25 through 28 as follows:
• Include Curb Parking Removal and Landscaped Parkways in the"Volume Control"
drawer(page 26)as applicable only on Residential Arterial streets.
• Include Rubberized Asphalt Overlays: in the"Other Complementary Tools" drawer on
Page 28 as applicable only to Residential Arterial streets.
Issue#6: Should residents living along Residential Collector and Residential Local streets
be required to help pay for NTM activities?
Staff Recommendation: YES. Residents in these neighborhoods significantly contribute
to traffic conditions and thus will benefit from traffic calming activities. Therefore, they
should have some responsibility for funding the installation of NTM devices. The draft
NTM Guidelines recommend that the City pay for perpetual maintenance of these facilities.
Staff continues to believe that the proposed $140 per household allowance is sufficient to
construct basic facilities that address NTM problems with speeding and cut through traffic.As
described below,the proposed funding formula is responsive to the size of the study area since
the greater the number of households in a study area,the larger the cumulative allowance will
be. While the allowance for small areas may not be great, the need for extensive facilities
should also not be significant.
However, staff recommends that the formula shown on page 17 be simplified. While the
funding allowance should be retained at $140 per household, all "cost overruns" should be
equally divided between the City and study area households. The $10,000 cap for City
funding as shown in the current formula should be eliminated. The new recommended funding
formula would look like this:
Household Cost = Total Project Cost-($140 x Number of Households)
2
Applying this new formula to the example shown on page 16 in the draft guidelines would
reduce Household Cost from$200 to$130 per household. This revised formula is much easier
to explain and understand compared with the previous more complicated one. The revised
formula also results in a higher level of City financial participation and reduces the required
financial participation of neighborhoodhouseholds.
Staff believes that this funding strategy should be tested during the first 18 months of the NTM
program. If during that time, our collective experience indicates a need for change,then the
Council can direct staffto bring the funding issue back for further consideration.
Cities where NTM activities have been successfully installed require some form of citizen
financial participation. As seen in the short film from the City of Seattle,Washington,citizens
become much more involved in the process,get to know each other much better,and achieve a
true sense of"neighborhood" during such a process. Projects and facilities are realistically
sized and selected. Due to the consensus-building process, small vocal factions within the
neighborhood are moderated by the larger group. Without any funding participation,there
would be no Iimit to the size and complexity of proposed projects and little reason to obtain
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 6
large neighborhood input or consensus.
Changes to the Draft Guidelines:
• Amend the second bulleted item in the right column on Page 16 to delete the last sentence
in the paragraph. (This change deletes the reference to a$10,000 City funding cap.)
• Revise the example shown in the table at the bottom of Page 16 to reflect the new funding
formula-
Revise
ormulaRevise the funding formula shown on Page 17 as follows:
Household Cost = Total Project Cost- ($140 x Number of Households)
2
Issue #7c Should the NTM Guidelines continue to include provisions that enable Action
Teams to recommend "benefit assessment districts",as a way of financing expensive NTM
prole?
Staff Recommendation:YES. In general,assessment district financing only works for high
cost projects such as those exceeding $300,000. Given the difficulty of establishing
assessment districts, staff does not expect Action Teams to frequently recommend this
financing method. However, the guidelines only identify assessment districts as a fundis
option and do not mandate that they be employed. Therefore, staff believes that this option
should be retained as expressed by the provisions on page 17 (second bulleted item on the
right). Remember, if this option is chosen by neighborhood residents, it has been selected
because they feel that the results are so beneficial that they are willing to assess themselves to
achieve those results.
However, staff also believes that it is unnecessary to include provisions that establish special
voting requirements for Action Plans (as shown on page 15 of the draft guidelines) that
propose to establish benefit assessment districts. Inevitably,the scope of these more expensive
proposals and a specific funding strategy will be resolved by the City Council when it
considers adopting a proposed Action Plan.
Changes to Draft Guidelines:
• Delete the second bulleted paragraph in the right column on Page 15.
Issue#8:Are there minor word changes needed to clarify provisions of the NTM Guidelines?
Staff Recommendation:YES.
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 7
Changes to Draft Guidelines:
Location Reference Proposed Change
Page 12, last bulleted pRiUap m "The following table' specifies
right column individual Initial Activities(meFe€i4y described in
Appendix A,pages 34 and 35,and Appendix E..."
Page "Paying for ti o utions "As a general rule, the City will pay for the initial
solutions to large scale-problems identified in these
gtiidelines
pipe- pFepeFty. An exception to this general
rule..."
Page 15, last paragraph in right e vote is not successtul,the NIM process Will
column end. Unless the Action Team may chooses to hold
additional community meetings..."
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives address funding of large-scale NTM projects on Residential Collector
and Residential Local streets only:
Funding Alternative 1: Increase the Household Funding Allowance.
Evaluation:The proposed allowance of$140 per household was determined by modeling the
costs for minimal NTM facilities (such as speed humps and stop signs) and dividing by the
typical number of households along a street. Therefore, for the majority of neighborhood
projects, there should be no financial participation required of area households. The
Neighborhood Ad Hoc Committee felt that neighborhood enhancing facilities (such as
landscaped traffic circle, chicanes, and bulbouts) should be partially funded by the
neighborhoodsbenefitingby these additions.
The Council could choose to raise the per household funding allowance which would increase
the City's funding share of these types of neighborhood enhancements. Possible allowance
levels are unlimited,so only three levels are shown below:
la: $150 per household
lb: $175 per household
1 c: $200 per household
The per household allowance methodology maintains equity amongst neighborhoods favoring
neither large or small neighborhoods.
3,�17
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 8
Funding Alternative 2: City pays for all installation costs.
Evaluation: If the City Council decides that this is an appropriate policy,then it should select
one of the following sub-alteratives and provide direction to staff:
2.a: Provide funding from existing budget with covers both large- and small-scale NTM
projects($40,000 per year)on a first-come-first-served basis; or
2.b: Increase the amount of annual funding and provide support on a first-come-first-served
basis; or
2.c: Determine funding when an Action Plan comes before the City Council for adoption; or
2.d: Defer final action on any NTM Action Plan and establish funding when adopting the
current Financial Plan; or
2.e: Limit funding to one large-scale NTM plan per year and pay for all installation costs.
Funding Alternative 3: Establish a funding cap for any large-scale NTM project.
Residents would pay all installation costs that exceed the cap.
Evaluation: The Council will need to consider the funds currently budgeted for NTM
activities ($40,000 per year) and decide to maintain or expand that amount. Based on that
decision, the Council will then need to establish a funding cap (say $20,000) for individual
NTM projects. The potential impact of establishing a funding cap might be to disadvantage
large areas (which may request a variety of devices), while providing an advantage to small
areas with limited facilities.
Once the cap is established, this alternative is clear and relatively easy to administer. (Note:
the current City Budget includes a sin a account that funds both small- and large-scale NTM
projects. Therefore, funding of small scale projects will deplete the amount available for
large-scale projects during any given budget year.)
Funding Alternative 4: Limit funding to one large-scale NTM project per year but
establish a funding cap.
Evaluation:This alterative is similar to Option 3. However, it also controls the number of
projects that the City will consider funding each year and has the potential for providing
additional funding for any given project. For example, if the current budgeted funds were
used as a benchmark, the City could fund one $40,000 project per year. However, setting
priorities on which project should be funded if there are an array of candidates is an issue
that would require Council resolution.
Funding Alternative 5: Establish a matching grant program for large-scale NTM
projects. For every dollar provided by neighborhood residents,
the City would match it with general funds.
Evaluation: This strategy would allow residents to select the scale and complexity of the
project, with the knowledge that they would be paying for half of it. Fund raising in
neighborhoods might extend the NTM planning process since even relatively small projects
would need matching fiords from neighborhood residents. However, no cap for the City's- p.
tea
Council Agenda Report: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and Guidelines
Page 9
funding share would be set. s option would provide advantages to Study ea
households that could afford to raise the matching funds — an effect that may be similar to
any.funding option that involves the financial participation of residents.
Funding Alternative 6: Establish a minimum funding amount for each large-scale NTM
project then apply a matching grant pro rgra to project costs that
exceed this amount.
Evaluation: This strategy is similar to Option 5. However, a minimum funding amount
(e.g. a lump sum of$10,000) would be established for any large-scale NTM project. This
option allows residents to purposely select lower-cost options to avoid the need for
extensive (or any)fund raising. However,the minimum funding amount would favor small
neighborhoods compared to Option 5.
ATTACHMENTS
NTM Gq'delines
Counci Agenda Report for February 17, 1998
Council Agenda Report for April 7, 1998 available in the Council Office
Resolution approving NTM Guidelines
I:\CouncUAgendaReports\NTMCouncilAgendaRpt3a
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT(NTM)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 neighborhoodtraff c 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 et'1400r y 1 6Ybgrgensen