No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Traffic Mitigation Fees PHSpecial -Public Hearing a�ry oF� Agenda Item No: 2 Meeting Date: Sept. 28, 2004 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Public Works ^ Prepared by: >'C��� �v � City Manager Approval: Director of he Works (NM ) i SUBJECT: Public Hearing — Draft San Rafael General Plan discussion regarding proposed amendments to Traffic Mitigation Fee Ord. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council hold Public Hearing and discuss the proposals made herein. BACKGROUND: The current General Plan 2000, Circulation Element, Policy C-17,and Chapter 3.32 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, established traffic mitigation fees for Northgate, Central San Rafael/Downtown, and East San Rafael areas. These fees are collected for net new PM peak trips generated by each project. The traffic mitigation fees were calculated in three different areas of the City based upon the total cost of improvements for each of the three areas, then divided by its corresponding General Plan 2000 PM peak trips. The fees have been adjusted in accordance with the "Lee Saylor Construction Cost Index" since 1988. The last update occurred in January 2004. The current General Plan 2000 traffic mitigation fee schedules per PM peak trips are as follows: Northgate $3,370.00 Central San Rafael/Downtown $1,050.00 East San Rafael $3,330.00 GENERAL PLAN 2020 MITIGATION FEE A list of proposed projects to address the Level of Service at the intersections and arterials for General Plan 2020 landuse impacts, and background traffic increase has been published in the Draft General Plan 2020 (exhibit 19 -page 183). Since the Planning Commission public hearings exhibit 19 has been updated, and it is included with this report. The proposed roadway FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: —A, Council Meeting: Disposition: I is b1Q-d'►��►-� ��� 1 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 2 improvements listed are estimated to cost $57,950,000 (2004 dollars). Staff has estimated that $38,600,000 will need to be collected via traffic mitigation fees citywide, $15,350,000 could potentially be funded by the Redevelopment Agency, and $4,000,000 are anticipated from State and Federal grants. The City's mitigation fee account balance is currently $9,600,000 of which approximately $2,000,000 has been committed for projects currently under design or construction citywide. Therefore, $7,600,000 is available. The remaining funds anticipated to be collected by mitigation fees is therefore estimated to be $30,900,000. Based on the above information staff recommends the City Council consider the following alternatives and direct staff to prepare a resolution to amend the traffic mitigation fee schedule for consideration at a future City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVE 1 The new traffic mitigation fee would be calculated by dividing $30,900,000 by the total number of PM peak trip ends, which equates to $7,022 per peak hour trip. The mitigation fee would be charged for the highest number of the AM or PM peak trips. Some of the advantages for this alternative are: • One fee is established citywide. • Traffic impacts are not necessarily restricted to specific areas of the City. Project trip distribution normally affects many intersections in various parts of the City. • It enables the City to match a larger State and Federal funding with local contributions. • Charging for the highest peak hour trip generation (AM or PM) will better enable the City to collect funds for impacted areas NOTE: Staff has requested that this alternative be reviewed by the City Attorney and his finding and recommendation will be available at the meeting ALTERNATIVE 2 Continue to have three (3) different traffic mitigation fee schedules as per current General Plan 2000. The General Plan 2020 proposed improvement cost estimate breakdown for each of the three areas are as follows: Northgate $17,600,000 Central San Rafael/Downtown $18,150,000 East San Rafael $22,200,000 Total $57,950,000 By subtracting available and uncommitted traffic mitigation funds from each of the three areas proposed project costs, the following are additional traffic mitigation funds required: Northgate $11,500,000 Central San Rafael/Downtown $11,030,000 East San Rafael $ 8,400,000 Dividing the additional traffic mitigation funds required to fund the proposed improvements listed in the General Plan 2020 exhibit 19 by the total PM peak trips for Northgate, Central San SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 3 Rafael/Downtown and East San Rafael, traffic mitigation fee for each area per peak hour trip are as follows: Northgate $6,907 Central San Rafael/Downtown $6,585 East San Rafael $7,887 As specified earlier in this report the mitigation fee would be charged for the highest number of the AM or PM peak trips ALTERNATIVE 3 In general traffic impacts are assessed based upon the project's impact in the AM and PM peak trips. The proposed PSP (Project Selection Process) is also recommending project assessment for both AM and PM peak trips. Some projects have larger AM peak hour trips than PM peak trips and therefore their impact is not fully funded based on payment for PM peak fees alone. Using the combination of AM and PM peak trips for the General Plan 2020 and total cost of the proposed projects the following are the traffic mitigation fee schedules per (AM + PM) peak hour trips: City Wide fee (as per Alternative 1) $4,246 Northgate $4,223 Central San Rafael/Downtown $3,920 East San Rafael $4,805 The traffic mitigation fee is collected based on total of the AM and PM peak trips. EXEMPTIONS AND DISCOUNTS Economic Development and attraction of businesses are especially challenging when they are faced with payment of fees. As exists now in the current General Plan 2000 there has been special consideration provided for certain tax generating uses such as retail. A 60% discount for these land uses has been established in Downtown and Northgate area. Staff recommends the following exemptions and discounts to be applied to any of the three alternatives described above. 1. Childcare Facilities (Citywide) 2. Any change of use less than 5000 square feet in existing buildings Downtown; including intensification of use. 3. Housing projects if 50% or more of the units are restricted to be affordable to low and moderate income households. (Citywide). 4. City facilities and works of improvement. 5. Projects that have Disposition and Development or Owner Participation Agreements, or similar instruments, with the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency for cultural and entertainment in Downtown, discount 40% SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paye: 4 EXISTING GP2000 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 MITIGATION FEE SUMMARY TABLE TRIP UNIT NORTHGATE PM $3,370 Highest N/A AM or PM Highest $6,907 AM or PM CENTRAL EAST SAN RAFAEL SAN RAFAEL CITYWIDE DOWNTOWN $1,050 $3,330 N/A N/A N/A $7,022 $6,585 $7,887 N/A ALTERNATIVE 3 AM + PM $4,223 $3,920 $4,805 $4,246 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends combination of alternative 3 for citywide fee exemptions and discounts depicted above. Enclosures (1)General Plan 2020 Exhibit 19 Revised Public Works Dept. City of San Rafael Traffic Engineering Proposed Roadway Improvements 1 Smith Ranch Road/Lucas Valley Road Widen roadway to provide two westbound and two eastbound lanes between Redwood Highway and Los Gamos. Widen northbound 101 off ramp and southbound 101 off ramp for additional right and left tum lanes. 2 Lucas Valley/Los Gamos ( This replaces the Lucas Valley Interchange $17,000,000) Widen Lucas Valley Road to provide two through lanes for eastbound and westbound, and provide two westbound left tum lanes. Widen southbound Los Gamos to provide 2 lanes for 300 feet and merge back to one lane. Signalize intersection and coordinate with adjacent intersections. 3 Las Gallinas Avenue (Merrydale to Del Presidio) Remove parking and widen street to provide four lanes. One southbound, two northbound and one two-way left tum. 4 Freitas/Las Gallinas Upgrade the traffic signal system and operation. Improve intersection geometry, cover portions of drainage ditch 5 Freitas/ Del Presidio Explore feasibility of double northbound right tum and southbound 101 on ramp widening 6 Freitas/ Northbound 101 Ramps- Redwood- Civic Center widening and signalization. Right of Way Required. 7 Grand Avenue (south of Grand Avenue bridge to Fourth Street) Widen north/south, add one lane as required, and upgrade traffic signal system. Requires right of way and major bridge widening. Signalize Grand/ Fifth, and restrict parking to provide tum lanes Signalize Grand/ Mission, and restrict parking to provide tum lanes 8 Francisco Blvd. East (Bellam to Grand Avenue Bridge) Four lanes required. One southbound, one two-way left tum and two northbound lanes. Major right of way required. Signalize Francisco Blvd. East/Harbor 9 Lincoln Avenue (Second Street to southbound 101 ramps- Hammondale or as required) Extend the existing PM peak northbound Tow -Away zone for AM peak as well (four lanes may be required). This parking restriction is likely to be extended north toward the southbound 101 ramps Signalize Lincoln/ Grand, and restrict parking to provide tum lanes 10 Mission/Lincoln Provide additional lanes for northbound, and westbound; upgrade traffic signal system, requires right of way. 11 Fourth Street (Miracle Mile) Re -align Ross Valley and Santa Margarita and re -design intersection operation. LOS may deteriorate but community access will be provided. Funding Source Projected Cost Mitigation Fee Redevelopment State & Federal $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Projected Project Timing Depends On Development Timing Depends On Development Timing $300,000 $300,000 Depends On Development Timing $650,000 $650,000 5-7 years $900,000 $900,000 Depends On Development Timing $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Depends On Development Timing $6,500,000 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 Depends On Development Timing $200,000 $200,000 5-7 years $200,000 $200,000 5-7 years $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Depends On Development Timing $200,000 $200,000 5-7 years $400,000 $400,000 3-5 years $200,000 $200,000 3-5 years $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Depends On Development Timing $450,000 $450,000 5-7years Public Works Dept. City of San Rafael Traffic Engineering Proposed Roadway Improvements Additional Signalization 12 Signalize Fifth & H Street, and restrict parking to provide tum lanes. 13 Signalize First/C Street, and restrict parking to provide turn lanes. 14 Signalize First/ D Street, and restrict parking to provide tum lanes. 15 Signalize Fourth/Union Street, and restrict parking to provide tum lanes. 16 Signalize or Roundabout Mission/Court Street. 17 Signalize Merrydale/Southbound 101 Ramps, and provide tum lanes, 18 Signalize Lincoln/DuBois/Irwin and re -align intersection. Right of way required. 19 Third/Union Street Widen Union Street to provide 4 lanes between Third and Fourth. Fire Station 4 modification required. Reconfigure Third/Union eastbound left tum pocket. Provide westbound right turn pocket. Upgrade the traffic signal system and operation. 20 Kerner Blvd or Francisco Blvd. East. To Andersen Drive Undercrossing Provide a minimum 3 lane connector near Shoreline Parkway. Signalize at both ends. 21 Andersen /East Sir Francis Drake -eastbound 580 Ramps Major widening and Signalization. 22 Upgrade traffic signal system. 23 Install traffic monitoring sensors and camera system. 24 Install Fiber Optic network throughout the traffic system. JSub -Total Other Projects 25 Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 26 Pedestrian bridge at Third/Hetherton- GGT. 27 Pedestrian bridge connect Canal to Andersen Drive/Downtown. 28 Pedestrian bridge connect Canal to Montecito Shopping Center. 28 Freitas / Northbound 101 Ramp -Redwood -Civic Ctr or a new fly over from Civic Center Dr. to Freitas. 29 Second Street ( East of A Street to E Street). The projected volume requires right tum lanes or through/right lanes be added in the long term. Right of way required. 30 Pedestrian bridge over Canal between the Canal and Montecito/Happy Valley neighborhoods 31 North San Rafael Promenade Sub Total Other Projects Grand Total Project Cost $900,000 $900,000 2 years $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 Funding Source $3,000,000 Projected Cost Mitigation Fee Redevelopment State & Federal Projected Project Timing $100,000 $100,000 3 years $150,000 $150,000 3 years $150,000 $150,000 3 years $200,000 $200,000 Depends On Development Timing $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 Depends On Development Timing $250,000 $250,000 5-7years $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Depends On Development Timing $900,000 $900,000 2 years $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 Depends On Development Timing $1,000,000 5-7 years $1,500,000 7 years $500,000 7 years $1,000,000 7 years $57,950,000 $38,600,000 $15,350,000 $4,000,000 Projected Cost City Funds Redevelopment State & Federal $5,300,000 $2,650,000 $2,650,000 7-20 years $2,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 Depends On SMART, 10-20 years $4,500,000 $1,125,000 $1,125,000 $2,250,000 10-20 years $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,00010-20 years $12,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 Depends On Development Timing $6,000,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $1,500,00010-20 years $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 10-20 years $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,00010-20 years $39,800,000 $14,775,000 $7,625,000 $17,400,000 $97,750,000 NOTE: HATERIAL GIVEN TO CITY COUNCIL @ SPEC. SRCC RIEETI"JG 9/28/040 BY f iENSERS OF THE PUBLIC. ,s„1.Lo BIZARRO Piraro VOL a lots of bbim le Wi Co eStit0 ,, Analysis of Intersection LOS Effects Against baseline Traffic for 24 Intersections in San Rafael (Source: General Plan EIR, Exhibit IV. 2-12, pages IV -23 and 24) 'lase A - General Plan 2020 without Improvements Number Number of Intersections of Intersections with No Change with a Decline in LOS in LOS Case B - General Plan 2020 with Improvements Number Number of Intersections of Intersections with No Change with a Decline in LOS in LOS 8 2 CONCLUSIONS: Number of Intersections with Improved LOS 0 Number of Intersections with Improved LOS 14 1) As if we did not know it already, the City faces serious Traffic Congestions problems and deterioration of LOS. 2) Improvements are essential to manage future anticipated Traffic Congestion and attempt to maintain acceptable LOS. 3) Funding for essential and necessary Improvements through Traffic Mitigation Fees and other sources are critical. 4) Without Improvements and the Funding in place for those Improve- ments, further development in the City is questionable and will clearly result in increased Traffic Congestion and a deteriorating LOS throughout the City. 0 rT T rr rF 77 d �11 f rT rT Respectfully submitted, September 28, 2004 Roger Roberts 223 Southern Heights Blvd. San Rafael, Calif. 94901 Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods P.O. Box 151485 San Rafael, CA. 94915-1585 September 23, 2004 Mayor and City Council Members City of San Rafael Dear Council members, The Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods strongly disagrees with the language of the Draft General Plan 2020 with respect to the Traffic Level of Service Standards proposed for adoption in Section C-5 of the Circulation Element, and the City's apparent acceptance of the increased Traffic Congestion that is implied as a matter of policy. There has been repeated Public comment during the Steering Committee deliberations, and before the Planning Commission in opposition to the lowering of the City's LOS traffic standards citywide generally and particularly with respect to the specific intersections listed on page 173. This public comment apparently has been ignored. In addition, the language of paragraph D, (Evaluation of Project Merits), of Section C-5 also appears to allow even higher Level F Traffic Congestion levels at the identified intersections to achieve other potential perceived public benefits that "outweigh" a project's impacts on circulation. This is proposed without establishing any criteria for determining what level or degree of benefit is required to override the city's LOS standards. Without exception, projects should be required in all cases to do what is necessary, (not merely that which is feasible), to mitigate their traffic impacts and meet the City's LOS Traffic Standards for impacted arterials and intersections. We should only accept increased traffic congestion for very clear and substantial defined benefits to the community at large including the neighborhoods and intersections that will be most affected by a projects traffic generation. The language of Section C-5, most notably paragraphs A and D read together, provide a loophole that will without question allow increased levels of traffic congestion throughout the city and at the identified intersections. Why should the city want to make already unacceptable levels of traffic congestion even worse! We find that position difficult to understand and unacceptable. Section C-5 of the Draft General Plan 2020 is misguided, and so loosely framed as to provide no relief from existing traffic congestion much less that which may arise in the future out of additional project development. There should be absolute clarity of intent and purpose in this section of the General Plan in this regard. We urge the City to simplify its approach to our traffic congestion pmbiems and make it clear to all concerned that in its General Plan it will rigorously folldw a policy of maintaining at least Traffic Levels of Service D throughout the city, and only deviate from that policy in truly exceptional and defined circumstances. As a matter of general rule, where existing intersections and arterials do not meet this LOS standard they must be brought up to that standard before additional project traffic impacts will be considered. We ask that the language of section C-5 of the Draft General Plan 2020 be amended to make this policy position abundantly clear to all. The General Plan should also clearly define what would be required to consider any exceptions to this general rule. To reiterate our major concerns, we in the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods strongly oppose any reduction in the LOS levels and increases in traffic congestion whether they are LOS D to E or E to F! We are also very concerned in the approach to adjust or degrade LOS levels under the a&pieiem of "public benefit" without the clear and precise definition of those "benefits"! `~usi'' ces Sincerely, Patrick J. Murphy Chairman MARIN COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION TO: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL FROM: ERIC ANDERSON, MCBC SUBJECT: REVISED COMMENTS, DRAFT SAN RAFAEL 2020 GENERAL PLAN DATE: 9/28/2004 The Marin CountyBicycle Coalition (MCBQ thanks the Planning Commission and City staff for their careful review and consideration of our previous comments. MCBC respectfullysubmits the following follow-up comments on the Circulation Element of the San Rafael 2020 General Plan. "Bicycling and Pedestrian Facilities" MCBC recommends that the language "expanded bikeway network" be revised. Consider incorporating the following statement: "Consistent with the San Rafael Bic)de and Paiatnkn Master Play provide a complete bikeway, pathway and sidewalk network" "G4 Safe Roadway Design" MCBChas requested that San Rafael state a policy that recognizes pedestrians and cyclists (in that order as the most vulnerable roadway users and establishes safety priorities for roadway design accordingly. Staff has responded that it does not prioritize the safety of one mode of users over another. MCBC requests that this recommendation be reconsidered to ensure that the extreme vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists is recognized — in comparison to the relatively lower level of vulnerability to which motorists are exposed. "G6. Proposed Improvements" MCBC requests that this section reaffirm San Rafael's commitment to bicycling and walking with the following language: "Whenever possible within environmental and safety limitations plan and implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan improvements when they are found within planned roadway projects." Funding for these pedestrian and bicycle projects should be planned as a part of the larger project. "C -7a. Planned Roadway Improvements" See above language for section G6. "G25. Meeting Local Circulation Needs Around Highway Interchanges." MCBC's initial comments reflected the need for increased awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety where freeway interchanges meet the local road system. Staff has responded that it does not prioritize the safety of one mode of users over another. Again, MCBC requests that this recommendation be reconsidered to ensure that the extreme vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists is recognized — in comparison to the relatively lower level of vulnerability to which motorists are exposed. "C -26a. Implementation" See above language for section G6. pollee firsts progCs support Gerstle Park Resident / GPNA Board Member representing NH / On Behalf of Federation representing NH related issues that are cross-town issues common to many or all San Rafael NHs ♦ Still against substitution of Home Town for Small Town — denotes vision contrary to the spirit of Steering Committee intentions. Page Item 70 NHIa-Neighborhood Concerned about the interim period between adoption of 2020 Planning: where our NH Plans become obsolete and the adoption of new plans are down the road. 70 NH2: new development in Residential Neighborhoods 71 NH3: Housing Mix 71 NH4b: Design Review Conditions of Approval 71 NH4c: Prop Maintenance Ord 71 NH5: Safe Streets Given that consensus seems to be growth, will most often occur as infill tvne housing; efine "new,.,& ' m �n srdo= a Oep� hencedpzl of a closing the gap for inconsistency of planning and design review treatment and ensuring neighborhood character is truly protected. It is possible this definition belongs in Community Design 3, programs 3a/3c, Interim Design Guidelines, or all of these areas. NH2/2a: add language of "Allow affordable/workforce housing as an exception to proposed definition rule, but only if subject to rigorous design review board and public process to ensure excellence in design and neighborhood endorsement. There is no specific program in the NH element for this policy, although other element's programs are referenced. It seems this is an appropriate place to perhaps put a policy statement regarding second units, especially in light of A132702; which by the way thank you for publically opposing. Since the spirit of this policy seems to be visually pleasing and well maintained neighborhoods, Reject the deletion of "properties" and request it be replaced. If we can figure out a way to enforce landscape in good condition, why not properties as well? Priority to develop this Program which would enhance resident quality of life, and encourage stronger economic vitality The C-21 program for this policy is one that doesn't work. This is a perfect place for the Council to commit and direct a policy and program to achieve traffic calming measures in all neighborhoods to encourage and ensure safe street conditions for walking, cycling and driving. C-21 is essentially the same process currently in place, and one that doesn't work for NHs. discuss more specifically under C21. Page I4m t✓ 72 73 73 81 86/87 NH -6a Bike and Ped Friendly Streets Doesn't address NH streets being used as diverters to make DT and thru-fare streets, examples include Lincoln and D. No commitment for Residential Traffic Calming — past experience Downtown Downtown, etc How many new streets are we going to get? Request deletion of "new" and inclusion of existing narrow streets, especially in/near downtown. NH -9b Vehicles as Request deletion of "public right of way" limitation. Ordinance Residences should enforce prohibition of residential use of vehicles whether on private or public property for obvious nuisance reasons. NH-32Downtown's Approve of the added language regarding gradual transitions to Neighbors adjacent residential neighborhoods in terms of building scale and intensity of use. NH -39 or NH -40 Request specific/differentiating treatment of the South side of 2nd Second/Third Mixed -Use from the North Side of Second at areas where as -built geography District limits transition areas to adjacent existing neighborhoods and residential uses exist. Otherwise, this seems inconsistent with other policies in Community Design and NH -32 Downtown Neighbors, possible NH28a Downtown Design Guidelines. Specifically thinking of the south side of 2nd between C and E; Differentiating height limit/development not only transitions to residential streetscape but also prevents "tunnel" effect which is a loss for all tnasserbvers. Vis. a Salvo i s to" rteri�e br�rcletinsrA ♦ Acknowledge that there are economic realities facing us, and we most definitely need more money. Commend Measure efforts to keep our revenues working within San Rafael. Commercial opportunities are often first sought due to revenue, however, there must remain a delicate balance weighing GP priorities because quality and successful neighborhoods ultimately go hand in hand with vital commercial areas. The downscaling of commercial and housing numbers in this plan are a signal that resident concerns about capacity and quality of life have registered but we still are very concerned about the timing and quantity of growth outlined in GP2020. 2 137 CD -3 a/c Neighborhoods Good start on Design Review Process, but request making DRB available to more types of projects, S� e.g. new construction, remodeling, additions and,�N� renovations effecting exterior elevations. Perhaps not make DRB required, but available if project w ,-r requires variance, meets neighborhood opposition or project does not fit in context. 138 CD -4 Historic Agree with value of historic resources mentioned in this policy and high priority given to develop a strong, successful Historic Preservation CD -fit GO hzao ("'xc) Policy/program. 141 CD -11c Successful LILO- Consider including projects that are not desirable. Design Portfolio San Rafael has some projects that meet the letter of Interim Design Guidelines, but are controversial of whether they meet the spirit of "Good Design". Since Good Design seems to be the hingepoint of / many discussions, shouldn't both successful and not successful be included? This might help develop Design Guidelines that promote more successful projects. (Albert Lofts, Lone Palm, Corp Center, Courthouse, Macy's....). 143 CD -16a. Notification and Request strikeout of ......"Provide early notification Information about and require neighborhood meeting early in the Development review process for proposed projects..." be reinstated. The crux of our disagreements seem to be getting on the same page about applications, and earlier is more effective for future development to meet neighborhood acceptance. 23 LU -2a Development Review 26 LU -9b FAR transfers 31 LU -13 Building Heights 31 LU -14 Height Bonus Strongly oppose added language of ...."City may waive or modify any policy requirement contained herein if it determines that the effect of implementing the same in the issuance of a development condition or other approvals would be to preclude all economically viable use of a subject property „ ::. 11 ueh too:lvos aid' d u'1 gr©tem WIT the �f � Says one or both, but there are 4 items. Need to know whether it's one or more, or two or more, or all four? Exhibit 7 seems to be gone now although it's still referenced. Is the Zoning Ordinance governing height limits to everywhere except Downtown? "Request varying the new NC height limit from a straight 36' allowable to a site specific range of 30- 36. "Also request clear definition of how height is calculated be included as many people don't know about average point of pitch calculation. Approve clarifying language regarding only one height bonus can be granted. Is this inclusive of the Affordable Density Bonus allowable (either/or or both)? Recommend no LU -14 height bonus allowed if qualifying for affordable bonus. 0C- 4 153 154 EV -8b: Day Laborers d" EV -11a: Home Occupations Legality? Definitely need to have a policy regarding the congregation Z laborers on our "Gateway" streets, bdt i really organize them and' e&. encourage breaking the law ke.g. employment , ,, practices/workers comp insurance/IRS) .-- Agree that home occupations can be effective alternative but request High priority be given to programs related to this policy as Home Occupatioj also create problems in NHs. .11 5 SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER of COMMERCE 817 Mission Avenue - San Rafael, CA 94901 - (415) 454-4163 - FAX: (415) 454-7039 September 28, 2004 To: Mayor Boro and City Council Members From: Elissa Giambastiani, President/CEO Re: Amendments to the Traffic Mitigation Fee Ordinance In reviewing the staff report and the list of proposed traffic improvements, we understand why staff is proposing this huge increase in traffic mitigation fees. However, we am very concerned that this increase will have the result of stopping any new housing or commercial developments proposed for the city. We thinlc that you will be killing the golden goose if you adopt this proposed fee increase. The General Plan already reduces the amount of future commercial development. If you adopt these fees, you'll have none. It is very unlikely that San Rafael will have any new housing developments with 50 percent or more of the units restricted to low or moderate income households. So the 50 percent discount is meaningless. However, this increase means that even a small project of six units would trigger a fee of $42,000 based on the $7,000 per trip proposal. This mitigation fee will be on top of the housing mitigation fee if the development was not able to provide an affordable unit. Multiply this by 99 for the Loch Lomond development, and the fee goes up to $693,000. The discount for downtown cultural or entertainment projects will not be enough to encourage this type of development downtown. For example: Century Theatres is estimating about 400 new trips for the proposed Cineplex. Even with a 40 percent discount, the traffic mitigation fee will be $1.7 million dollars. If Circuit City expands in its new location with an increase of 200 trips, for example, the traffic mitigation fee will be $1.4 million. What will happen with Marin Square? This is a redevelopment we really want. The property has over 100,000 square feet, and the redevelopment will certainly be more than 5,000 square feet. How much will the new owner have to pay for traffic mitigation? What will the Marin Community Clinic have to pay if it wants to open a clinic in the Canal? We understand that other communities have traffic mitigation fees, but Marin's land costs, plus the cost of the planning process, put us near the top in the eyes of developers. srcc@sanrafaelchamber.com . www.sanrafaelchamber.com Traffic Mitigation Fees Page 2 We have several suggestions to make: 1. The list of traffic improvements should be reviewed, and all improvements that are unlikely to be developed in 10 years should be removed from the list of Planned Circulation Improvements to reduce the total cost of improvements to be mitigated. Examples: the Kerner Blvd. to Anderson Drive undercrossing ($8 million); the pedestrian bridge to connect the Canal with Andersen Drive ($4 million). 2. Since the City desperately needs sales tax revenue, we suggest that it include a substantial retail discount. 3. It will be difficult enough to achieve our ABAG housing numbers without fee increases, so we think that the 50 percent discount should be extended to all housing developments that include an affordable housing component. 4. The City should hold an informal discussion with developers to ascertain the kinds of fee increases that could be economically viable. The Chamber would be happy to bring such a group of business people together. We feel strongly that more discussion needs to occur, particularly with prospective developers, before the City Council adopts an increase as extreme as that proposed in this staff report. CITY OF LIVERMORE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM Adopted on March 18, 2002 Resolution No. 2002-62 Revised on February 9, 2004 Resolution No. 2004-38 Table of Contents Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Introduction................................................................. 1 Background.................................................................. 1 Introduction to Traffic Calming Devices ................................ 2 Purpose Statement.......................................................... 2 Goals and Objectives....................................................... 3 Compatibility with General Plan .......................................... 3 Policy Statements 1. Emergency Response ............................................ 5 2. Traffic Calming Devices ......................................... 5 3. Maintenance....................................................... 7 4. Residential Focus ................................................. 8 5. Minimum Criteria and Prioritization Criteria ................ 9 6. Funding............................................................ 10 7. Traffic Calming Device Removal ............................... 12 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Process ................................... 12 Appendix Appendix A - Minor and Major Residential Collector Streets Appendix B — Traffic Calming Toolbox CITY OF LIVERMORE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Some experts claim that speeding traffic is a social issue and behavioral problem that cannot be addressed through engineering or enforcement. These experts point out the paradox of human behavior in which a resident wants drivers to drive slowly on their street, however that same resident will speed in other residential areas. They believe that until this issue of human behavior is addressed, speeding problems will persist. Although this may be true to a certain degree, many local governments around the world have experienced some success with traditional traffic calming programs. BACKGROUND The City receives numerous requests, complaints and suggestions from residents about traffic related issues. In 1999, the City Council inquired about the use of speed humps and other traffic calming measures to address excessive speeding vehicles and cut -through traffic in residential neighborhoods. From this inquiry, the Council initiated the Traffic Education, Engineering, and Enforcement program in June 1999. The Traffic Education, Engineering and Enforcement program employs a traffic management team comprised of Police Department and Engineering Division experts who emphasize education, engineering and enforcement to improve traffic safety. In October 2000, a motorcycle team of four officers with highly specialized training in enforcement was deployed. In many cases, this program has been extremely effective and continues to be a success. However, there is a high demand for enforcement all over the City and it is not very efficient to conduct enforcement on low volume residential streets. Sometimes enforcement works only on a temporary basis and there is a need for more permanent measures to reduce the speed of vehicles and discourage cut -through traffic on low volume residential streets. The idea of utilizing traffic calming devices was raised again by the City Council in 2001 when concerns were raised that traffic from the new developments in the TDR area near Holmes Street and Alden Lane would dramatically increase the traffic volume on Wood Hollow Drive. At the January 22, 2001 Council meeting, Council decided not to use road closures to divert the traffic and instead directed staff to work with residents of the Wood Hollow neighborhood to develop acceptable traffic calming measures. The Council also directed staff to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that could be applied to residential neighborhoods citywide. This program is the product of Council's direction. The implementation measures in the Traffic Education, Engineering and Enforcement program are considered Tier 1 traffic calming measures and do not include the more aggressive Tier 2 traffic calming measures which include physical modifications to the roadway. The aim of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is to strengthen the Traffic Education, Engineering and Enforcement program by adding a Tier 2 component and providing one comprehensive program that guides the use of additional engineering tools, commonly known as traffic calming devices, in responding to neighborhood traffic issues. INTRODUCTION TO TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES The Institute of Transportation Engineers defines traffic calming as follows: "Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non -motorized street users". Traffic calming devices can generally be divided into 4 categories: 1) Vertical deflection, 2) Horizontal shifts, 3) Constrictions and 4) Diverters & Closures. Examples of each of these devices are shown in Appendix B, "Traffic Calming Toolbox". Vertical deflection devices deflect the path of a vehicle in a vertical direction. These measures require motorists to slow considerably to minimize the impact when the vehicle passes over the device. Vertical deflection devices include speed humps, raised crosswalks and raised intersections. Horizontal shift devices shift the path of a vehicle in a horizontal direction, forcing motorists to slow to maneuver around the devices. Horizontal shifts have a secondary effect in that they tend to break up the straight sight lines of a roadway, which in turn slows motorists by reducing the comfortable speed of travel. Examples include traffic circles, chicanes, and medians. Constriction devices narrow the roadway and slow motorists by reducing the comfortable speed of travel. Constrictions include curb extensions, neckdowns and chokers. Other types of more passive constrictions are on -street parking, narrowed lanes and the addition of bicycle lanes. Traffic diverters, street closures, and tum restrictions are another type of traffic calming measure. These are generally measures that alter the transportation circulation system by prohibiting access to existing streets. Some agencies have had traffic calming programs for several decades now. Many of these programs have been successful. However, some agencies have since set up traffic calming removal programs and set moratoriums on implementing new devices. This movement is largely contributed to the proliferation of extremely restrictive traffic calming devices across an agency without due regard for the movement of traffic and the cumulative impacts. Therefore, it is particularly important to determine the need and appropriateness of devices as part of the traffic calming program in order to reduce the likelihood of later implementing a traffic calming removal program. PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is to improve livability and quality of life within residential neighborhoods through the deployment of traffic calming devices. This is accomplished by the following program steps: • Define a process to evaluate neighborhood concerns. • Identify criteria to implement various methods to calm traffic. • Establish the means to pay for and maintain the devices. • Prioritize the deployment of traffic calming devices. • Implement the program through the Capital Improvement Program. 2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The City of Livermore continually strives to ensure overall safety, protect its neighborhoods and improve the quality of life for its residents. Traffic conditions on residential streets certainly affect neighborhood livability and one's sense of community. Traffic that is traveling at inappropriate speeds and commuter traffic that is inappropriately using residential roadways can adversely affect a resident's quality of life. However, implementing traffic calming measures is not a solution for all speeding and cut -through traffic woes. Each neighborhood may have its own unique set of problems that must be analyzed to identify solutions. This program was developed to guide City staff and inform residents about the processes and procedures for implementing traffic calming measures on residential streets. Under this policy, staff will work with residents to identify traffic issues in their neighborhoods and seek appropriate solutions. The goal of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is to implement measures identified by a consensus of the neighborhood to affect driver behavior in such a way that improves safety and the quality of life for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. This goal is to be balanced with the City's goal to provide quick emergency response times for emergency vehicles including fire trucks, police and ambulances. The objectives are as follows: • Reduce vehicle speeds on residential streets. • Discourage cut -through traffic. • Promote conditions that encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel. • Create attractive streetscapes in neighborhoods. • Provide clear guidelines of the process to evaluate traffic calming measures. • Encourage citizen involvement in all phases of neighborhood traffic calming activities. • Make efficient use of City resources by prioritizing traffic calming requests. COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN This program is consistent with and assists in achieving the goals and policies identified in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan revised by the City Council in December 1998. The goals, policies and programs identified in the Circulation Element include: Emphasize in local circulation planning the need to minimize adverse environmental impacts and protect neighborhood quality. (Circulation System Goal #6) Provide a street system which minimizes traffic on local, minor (non -collector) streets in order to create and preserve a high quality residential environment. (Roadway Improvement Policy #10) Incorporate roadway improvement design measures which divert through traffic from, and minimize local traffic on, local residential streets in order to protect the quality and livability of Livermore neighborhoods. (Roadway Improvement Program #I I — Neighborhood Protection) 3 The Circulation Element defines the City's existing and future roadway system, including the classification of each roadway. The Circulation Element will be referenced in order to determine the classification of the roadways. In general, the Circulation Element defines local and collector streets as follows: Local Sheet: Local streets are low -speed, low -capacity minor streets that provide for circulation within neighborhoods, with direct access to abutting land uses. Street design standards and layouts are typically used to discourage through traffic movements, avoid high travel speeds and volumes, and minimize neighborhood noise and safety impacts. Curbside parking is usually permitted. Local streets are typically two-lane facilities. Collector: Collector streets are relatively low -speed, medium capacity streets that collect and distribute local traffic moving between local and major streets. Collector routes provide for circulation between neighborhoods, and divert through traffic from local streets. Direct access to abutting properties (driveway spacing) shall be stringently limited. Prohibitions on curbside parking may vary with road widths and traffic conditions. Collector streets are typically two to four -lane facilities. The circulation element currently does not differentiate between collector streets that may be primarily residential in nature and collector streets that may serve commercial and industrial areas. These types of collector streets have a distinctly different function where it can be generally stated that a collector serving a commercial or industrial area will have higher traffic volumes and speeds than a collector with residential frontage. In this respect, collector streets that have residential frontage are similar to local streets in that they should include goals to minimize adverse environmental impacts, protect neighborhood quality and preserve a high quality residential environment. Therefore, for the purposes of this program, two-lane collectors that are residential in nature are considered for inclusion in the above listed goals and objectives. Additionally, there are two different types of residential collector streets, major and minor collector streets. Major collector streets may include one or more of the following characteristics: 1) connects to two parallel major streets, 2) connects two or more collectors or major streets, 3) is usually fairly long (greater than 1 mile), 4) may be used to get from one part of town to the other, 5) connects several neighborhoods, 6) generally serves as access to approximately 500 or more residences, and 7) wider than 40'. Appendix A presents the designation of major and minor residential collector streets for use within this program. It should be noted that it is not the intent of this program to change the classification of roadways. Residential collector streets are designed to carry more traffic than local residential streets and are typically streets that provide access between local streets and arterial streets. It must be recognized that not all residential streets can mimic the traffic conditions of a cul-de-sac and it is not the goal of this program to achieve those conditions. 4 POLICY STATEMENTS 1. Emergency Response A critical concern about the use of traffic calming devices is the delay they may create for emergency response vehicles, including fire engines, ambulances and law enforcement vehicles. It is important to be aware of the trade-offs when making decisions about the use of traffic calming devices. The more aggressive devices for slowing traffic will slow emergency vehicle response as well, and in some cases may cause safety concerns. The City's policy for fire services is to respond to medical and structure fire incidents within 7 minutes, 90% of the time, as measured from receipt of the 911 call, to the fire unit arrival at the incident. The City currently meets this goal. It is important to point out that fire trucks respond to many life threatening medical emergencies, such as heart attack victims, in addition to fire emergencies. Often, a fire truck is the first to respond to a medical emergency, since there are fire stations located throughout the City. Fire stations have been spaced as far apart as is practical, while still meeting the response time goal, so as to avoid having too many fire stations. Thus, to areas at the limits of current response times, any significant traffic calming devices will cause response time failures. Recognizing the importance of achieving this emergency response time goal as a necessary service to the public, all traffic calming devices will be designed to accommodate all emergency vehicles and to minimize its impacts on emergency vehicle response times. Most arterial and collector streets are considered primary emergency vehicle response routes and are used to access various parts of the city from the fire stations. In order to minimize impacts to emergency vehicle response times, particular attention should be paid to the types of devices used on collector streets. Devices that considerably limit or restrict emergency vehicle access on collector streets will not be allowed. Emergency Response Policies: Traffic calming measures shall be designed to accommodate all emergency vehicles and to minimize their impacts on emergency vehicle response times. (Policy 1) Traffic calming measures shall be limited on primary response routes. (Policy 2) The Fire Department and the Police Department should be involved in the development of the traffic calming measures in neighborhoods and should approve all proposed plans. (Policy 3) 2. Traffic Calming Devices There are a few basic types of traffic calming devices that have different effects on the motoring public. It is important to understand how each type of device works and its impacts on motorists and emergency vehicles. The following discussion is divided to explain each type of device and the associated policies. Horizontal s/i�ft devices include traffic circles, chicanes, and medians. Constriction: devices include curb extensions, neckdowns and chokers. Both horizontal shift and constriction devices slow traffic by physically forcing motorists to maneuver around the devices. The use of landscaping within these devices not only enhances the aesthetics of the streetscape but also increases their effectiveness by breaking up the motorist's line of sight, which reduces the comfortable speed of travel. Therefore, these devices, when used in conjunction with one another, are effective for a longer stretch of roadway rather than just in the immediate vicinity of the device. These devices also tend to have relatively lower impacts on emergency response times in that the vehicles can continue to move around the devices without stopping. However, use of these devices usually requires prohibition of on -street parking adjacent to the device. Policies on Horizontal Shift and Constriction Devices: • Horizontal shift and constriction devices such as medians, traffic circles, chokers and chicanes are acceptable traffic calming devices. (Policy 4) • Residents fronting the proposed devices must approve any required parking restrictions. (Policy 5) Vertical deflection devices include speed lumps, speed humps, speed tables, and raised crosswalks and intersections. The only vertical deflection device that is included in this program is the speed lump. Speed lumps are similar to speed humps, except they are divided into three lumps with one foot of space between each lump. The space between the lumps is specifically designed to accommodate the axle width of fire trucks. All other vehicles with smaller axle widths have to go over the humps from at least one side of the vehicle. Speed lumps are typically 12 to 14 feet long and 3 inches high. One of the concerns associated with speed lumps is the potential increased noise in the immediate area where the speed lumps are installed because of braking and accelerating vehicles. It is important that residents immediately adjacent to the speed lumps concur to their installation. Policies on Vertical Deflection Devices: • Speed lump is the only approved vertical deflection device. (Policy 6) • Residents fronting the proposed speed lump must approve the installation. (Policy 7) Diverters, street closures, and turn restrictions are measures that alter the existing transportation circulation system. In developing a solution it is important not to shift the problem to another neighborhood. Turn restrictions and street closures can cause a tremendous amount of traffic diversion over a wide area. These types of measures have impacts that would need to be evaluated in a greater scope than just within a particular neighborhood. The impacts would include the environmental impacts due to changing the transportation circulation system. Many other cities have policies that ban or discourage street closures. For these reasons, diverters, closures and turn restrictions are not to be used as traffic calming measures. However, the use of diverters, street closures and turn restrictions may be used outside of this program and should be evaluated as part of a larger area -wide study if their use is to be considered. 6 Policy on Diverters and Closures: Diverters, street closures, and turn restrictions shall not be used as part of this program. (Policy 8) Stop signs are not traffic calming devices. Residents, however, often request stop signs in an effort to calm traffic. Although residents believe that stop signs will reduce vehicle speeds, studies have shown that vehicle speeds after the vehicle has passed through the stop controlled intersection are as high, and occasionally higher, than without a stop sign, as motorists try to "make up" time lost at the stop sign. The acceleration and deceleration near stop signs generates noise and adversely affects air quality. Inappropriate use of stop signs also creates significant adverse impact to emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles are required to verify that a stop controlled intersection is clear of vehicles prior to entering. Many times this means that the emergency vehicle must nearly come to a stop. The delay to an emergency vehicle at a stop sign is similar to that caused by a vertical deflection device. Stop signs are traffic control devices that should be used when appropriate to assign right-of-way to conflicting traffic movements, not to calm traffic. Stop signs should be installed only at locations where conditions meet established criteria, which has been the past practice of the City. Studies have shown that stop signs that do not meet established criteria (known as unwarranted stop signs) have a higher violation rate. Unwarranted stop signs also create disrespect of traffic control devices in general and affects behavior at other stop controlled intersections. It is for these many reasons that unwarranted stop signs are not to be used in this program. Policy on Stop Signs: Unwarranted stop signs shall not be used as a part of this program. (Policy 9) 3. Maintenance Many traffic calming devices alter the geometry of the roadway. Poorly designed traffic calming devices could interfere with street sweeping and other existing maintenance activities. This could have a negative effect on the appearance of the neighborhood and the residents' quality of life. Maintenance Policies: • Traffic calming devices shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to street sweeping and other maintenance activities. (Policy 10) • The development of traffic calming devices should be coordinated with the Maintenance Department. (Policy 11) 4. Residential Focus This program is focused on residential areas since the purpose of the program is to improve quality of life of residents. Only local residential and residential 2 -lane collector streets will be considered in this program. Arterial streets are specifically excluded from this program because the nature of arterial streets is to move large numbers of vehicles in a relatively free-flowing manner. Actually, non -neighborhood traffic is encouraged to use arterial streets in order to reduce cut -through traffic in the neighborhoods. Diverted traffic must also be considered when evaluating traffic calming measures. In developing a solution for one traffic problem, it is important not to shift the problem to another neighborhood or other residential streets within the neighborhood. Therefore, it is necessary to identify a neighborhood boundary to study the effects of proposed traffic calming devices. Neighborhood participation is important in order to develop a consensus of the issues that adversely affect the neighborhood, evaluate the pros and cons of the various traffic calming measures and ensure that the issues are adequately addressed. It is essential to consider a wide range of perspectives and observations in addition to engineering data. The program is designed so that residents can become actively involved in defining the problem(s) and in the decision- making process in order to have a sense of ownership of the outcome. In addition to neighborhood participation, it is important that the process reflects the opinions of a majority of the residents and not just a few vocal residents. This is implemented through the use of a petition that must be signed by at least 60% of the households within the neighborhood to initiate the traffic calming process. A prelinunary neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the traffic calming program prior to requiring the 60% petition. Another petition is required to implement the proposed traffic calming devices. This second petition is needed in order to be sure there is enough support for approval of an assessment district. This is discussed in more detail under funding. Residential Focus Policies: • Traffic calming measures will only be considered on local residential and residential 2 -lane collector streets. (Policy 12) • Traffic calming measures shall not be used on arterial streets or non-residential streets. (Policy 13) • Minimize diverted traffic to other local or residential collector streets. (Policy 14) • City staff will identify neighborhood study areas in order to evaluate the potential of diverted traffic. (Policy 15) • Maintain or improve the aesthetics of the streetscape through landscaping and hardscaping treatments. (Policy 16) • Residents within the neighborhood should be encouraged to participate in the identification of the issues as well as the development of the solution. (Policy 17) • Require a positive response from at least 60% of the households within the identified neighborhood boundary to initiate the traffic calming process and also to approve the permanent installation of traffic calming devices. (Policy 18) 5. Minimum Criteria and Prioritization Criteria The need to prioritize projects arises when the demand for traffic calming exceeds City resources. This includes staff time to work on the project as well as construction funding. A common approach used by most other cities to efficiently utilize city resources is to prioritize projects so that the neighborhoods with the greater problems are addressed first. Since most neighborhood traffic problems involve speeding vehicles or a high volume of vehicles relative to the street type, these criteria are weighted heavier in the ranking. Another factor that is considered in defining the extent of the problem is the average annual reported accidents. Also, the impact traffic will have on a neighborhood depends upon the character of the street in the neighborhood and the amount of pedestrian activity within the neighborhood. Streets that have a greater percentage of fronting homes, schools, parks or other public facilities are impacted more than streets that are lined with backing lot treatments. Neighborhoods that have a higher number of pedestrian generators, such as parks, schools and other public facilities, will be impacted greater than those neighborhoods without pedestrian generators. Due to the high concentration of school -aged pedestrians and localized traffic congestion associated with elementary, middle and high schools, these pedestrian generators are weighted double that of other non -school pedestrian generators. The prioritization criteria are also used to determine how the project should be funded. This is discussed in more detail under funding. In addition to prioritizing projects, it is necessary to provide some minimum criteria that must be met in order for a neighborhood to qualify for traffic calming measures. These minimum criteria ensure that City staff and financial resources are used efficiently by not spending resources on streets that do not have a significant traffic problem and to avoid creating unmet expectations by having a long list of projects that may never get built. These minimum criteria are based on vehicle speeds and volumes. For the purposes of the minimum and prioritization criteria, the data collected will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Minimum Criteria and Prioritization Criteria Policies: The minimum criteria to be used to determine if a street is eligible for traffic calming devices is as follows (Policy 19): Speed — 85th percentile speed (critical speed) is at least 33 mph Volume — Average daily traffic is at least 1000 vehicles The prioritization scoring criteria allows 35 maximum points and is as follows (Policy 20): Saeed 85`h percentile speed (critical speed) Points 34 mph 2 35 mnh 4 36 mph 6 37 mph I 8 38 mnh or more I 10 maximum Volume (Average Daily Traffic) Local Street Minor Collector Street I 1000-1100 Points 2000— 2200 1101— 1200 2201— 2400 1201-1300 3 2401— 2600 1301 —1400 4601 —5000 2601— 2800 1401 —1500 6 2801— 3000 1501 1600 3001-3200 1601— 1700 3201— 3400 1701 —1800 3401— 3600 1801— 1900 3601-3800 1901 and above 3801 and above Major Collector Street Points 3000 —3400 1 3401 —3800 2 3801 —4200 3 4201 —4600 4 4601 —5000 5 5001 —5400 6 5401 —5800 7 5801 —6200 8 6201 —6600 9 6601 and above 10 maximum Accident History - One point per accident susceptible to correction by traffic calming device, using the average annual accidents over past 3 years (5 points maximum) Fronting Uses (including homes, schools, parks & public facilities) Percentage of the street that has fronting uses Points 10% or less 1 11-25% 2 26-50% 3 51-75% 4 75-100% 5 maximum Pedestrian Generators (such as Darks, schools, public facilities, not including homes)* Number of pedestrian generators Points within neighborhood boundary 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 I 4 5 or more ( 5 maximum * Elementary, middle and high schools will be weighted double points in this category. 6. Funding Administration Costs - Administration costs include staff time to collect and analyze data, prioritize requests, conduct neighborhood meetings and design the traffic calming devices. These costs would be covered under normal operating budgets using existing staff. Capital Financing — The construction costs of traffic calming devices will be shared between the residents and the City of Livermore. The cost sharing concept has several advantages. It ensures that residents have buy -in and a sense of ownership in the project, and traffic calming devices are 10 less likely to be removed in the future. The issue of traffic calming removal should not be dismissed as minor. Some agencies that have had traffic calming programs for several decades have now implemented traffic calming removal programs. The shared funding concept helps to avoid this situation by ensuring that the traffic calming devices are really necessary. Another advantage of the shared funding approach is that the residents will be fiscally responsible in the development of the traffic calming plan. The City can stretch its budget to cover more projects to more neighborhoods. The residential share of the cost is dependent upon the nature of the traffic conditions in the neighborhood. The more severe traffic problems should receive a greater share of City funds. Since the prioritization criteria quantifies the magnitude of the traffic problem, the higher the prioritization score, the greater the percentage of the project that will be paid by the City. If a project scores 21 or more points, the City would fund 100% of the construction costs. The resident share of the traffic calming project would be collected through a Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District. This requires setting up an assessment district to levy fees to be added to the property owners' property tax bill. Some neighborhoods (about 15% of residential areas in the City) already have Lighting and Landscaping Assessment Districts that could be used to assess the cost of constructing and maintaining traffic calming devices if the neighborhood boundary coincides with assessment district boundary. If the boundaries do not coincide, then a new Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District would be formed. The main advantage of this method is that the cost of the project can be spread over several years (up to 5 years) to minimize the annual fiscal impact to each homeowner. The homeowners within the neighborhood boundary will be billed an equal share of the project. In order to impose this fee, a 51% majority vote of the voting homeowners is required. Approximately $5,000 to $10,000 would be spent by the City in "soft costs" such as administration and legal expenses to prepare the engineers report, and to put the assessment to a vote. If the assessment district vote fails, these soft costs would be taken out of the annual traffic calming budget. If the assessment district passes, these costs would be incorporated into the assessment. Operations and Maintenance Financing - Residents are required to pay for the cost of maintaining traffic calming devices, usually consisting of landscaping maintenance and irrigation costs, regardless of the percentage of the construction cost paid by the City. Some neighborhoods already pay for maintenance of common areas through Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts. The maintenance costs for traffic calming devices will be collected from the residents through Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts. An increase in assessments would require a 51% majority vote of the voting homeowners. The installation of traffic calming devices is predicated on voter approval of an assessment district to pay for maintenance of the devices. Funding Policies: • The shared funding concept is implemented to share the construction costs between the City and the residents, with a greater City share being contributed to address the more severe traffic problems. (Policy 21) • The City will not directly collect funds from the residents for the neighborhood share. (Policy 22) 11 • The residents shall be responsible for all associated maintenance costs through existing or new assessment districts. (Policy 23) • The Funding Criteria is based on the Prioritization Score. The higher the score the more the City will contribute to funding. The Funding Criteria is as follows (Policy 24): Points Proportion of City Funding 0-5 0% 6-10 25% 11-15 50% 16-20 75% 21 and above 100% 7. Traffic Calming Device Removal Although there are many policies and steps incorporated in the program to avoid the scenario whereby a neighborhood requests to have traffic calming devices removed, it is acknowledged that this may occur. In order for traffic calming devices to be removed from a neighborhood, the same process of neighborhood meetings and consensus requirements should be met. A neighborhood meeting would be held to discuss the issues and the impacts of traffic calming removal. A petition to garner 60% approval would need to be circulated within the original neighborhood boundary that installed the traffic calming device initially. The costs of removing traffic calming devices would be paid 100% by the residents. Therefore, it would require a 51% approval of the property owners to pass an assessment district vote to fund the removal costs. Removal Policies: Require a positive response from at least 60% of the households within the original neighborhood boundary to remove traffic calming device. (Policy 25) Residents shall pay for 100% of the costs to remove traffic calming devices. (Policy 26) NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS The process begins once the City receives a request from a resident to initiate a traffic study in a residential neighborhood due to concerns about traffic. The process is divided into two distinct tiers, with Tier 1 being the existing Traffic Education, Enforcement and Engineering Program and Tier 2 being the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. First, staff will conduct a Tier 1 analysis. This may include data collection including traffic counts, speed surveys, collision history and pedestrian observations. Staff may recommend that the identified problem may be easily reduced or alleviated with Tier 1 implementation measures. Tier 1 implementation measures are usually low cost tools, primarily consisting of education, enforcement and some engineering. Tier 1 implementation measures include: 12 • targeted enforcement • improving sight distance by trimming landscaping • appropriate additional signing, striping or pavement markings • educational outreach • placement of the radar speed trailer If Tier 1 measures do not have a positive affect on traffic and the resident still has a concern, the resident can request to move the request forward to Tier 2. If staff does not recommend the use of Tier 1 measures or the Tier 1 measures have already been implemented without the desired effect, the request may move directly to Tier 2. In order for a request to be considered for Tier 2, the existing traffic conditions must meet the following minimum criteria as stated in Policy 18. If these minimum criteria are not met, the request may not proceed for Tier 2 analysis. The request is then prioritized for study among other requests utilizing the prioritization criteria as stated in Policy 19. Prioritizing requests provides clear guidelines to staff on how to manage the limited resources effectively by dealing with neighborhoods that have the most pressing issues first. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the top projects on the priority list will be selected for study during that year, depending upon the availability of funding. Once the project is selected for study, staff determines a neighborhood boundary to identify the limits of the analysis. A preliminary neighborhood meeting will be held and all of the residents within the boundary will be notified. The purpose of this first meeting is to listen to the concerns of the residents, discuss the traffic calming program and process, the use of traffic calming devices and the potential fiscal impacts. This will mostly be an educational meeting, both for staff to learn the concerns of the residents and for the residents to learn of the traffic calming process and its implications. This meeting is purposely held prior to the circulation of the initial petition so that the residents are more educated about the process that they are being asked to support. At this meeting, it is required that a neighborhood captain or neighborhood working group be identified in order to coordinate the future outreach efforts within the neighborhood. Since traffic calming measures impact many people in the neighborhood and the measures tend to be costly, it is necessary to determine if there is adequate support for the process before continuing. Therefore, a petition requesting initiation of the Tier 2 process must be signed by at least 60% of the households within the neighborhood boundary. The neighborhood captain or the neighborhood working group will need to coordinate this effort. If at least 60% of the households do not sign the petition, the request may not proceed. For the purposes of this program, a household is defined as any owned or rented living unit with its own street address, regardless of how many people live in each unit. Each household is represented by one signature. Based on information gathered from the preliminary neighborhood meeting, staff will develop alternatives for implementation of traffic calming devices and their fiscal impacts. Then a second neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss study results and the altematives to identify the 13 neighborhood's preferred alternative. Once the neighborhood's preferred alternative is identified, Staff will develop a trial project to be conducted for a specific time period. Staff will implement the trial project and evaluate its effectiveness. It is important to note that trial projects tend to not be as effective as permanent installations. Trial projects are much less attractive because they usually consist of pavement markings, cones or concrete in the roadway to mimic the shape of the traffic calming device. There is no new landscaping associated with trial projects, therefore there is no benefit of sight line breaks. It is important to communicate this to the neighborhood during the second neighborhood meeting. After the trial period, a third neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the effects of the trial project, implementation of permanent measures, neighborhood approval requirements and funding scenarios. Once the permanent project is finalized, a neighborhood vote is required to approve the traffic calming project. This vote requires a positive response from at least 60% of the households. Then funding for the construction and maintenance of the project must be approved by the property owners through a Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District. If the project is 100% funded by the City, only the maintenance portion of the project would need to be approved in the assessment district vote. Once funding measures are in place, the City Council would review the neighborhood approved plan, approve permanent installation of the devices and allocate City funding. After funding is allocated, the CEQA process and environmental review of the project will be conducted. Plans and specifications will be prepared. Then the project will be advertised for construction. It is expected that construction would be completed within 12 months of City Council approval. 14 • g 1 ► t Traffic Calming Toolbox For use in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Purpose: This toolbox was developed to provide guidance on the use of various traffic calming devices for use in the City of Livermore. It is intended to be used in conjunction with the overall Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that outlines the goals, objectives, policies and procedures for addressing neighborhood traffic concerns in Livermore. Each page provides the following information for different traffic calming devices: Description: An illustration and written description is provided for each device. Application: Each traffic calming device or tool is designed to address specific traffic calming issues. The application section outlines the common uses for each device. Advantages: Each tool included in the toolbox provides some advantages to traffic calming and to the quality of life in the neighborhood. The advantages sections outlines the positive impacts associated with each traffic calming measure. Disadvantages: Although each device included in the toolbox provides some positive aspects to traffic calming, each has negative impacts as well. The disadvantages are outlined so that tools can be evaluated for both their positive and negative effects. Variations: There are often several variations of specific traffic calming devices. Several of these are provided where they are appropriate. Considerations: This section offers a variety of issues that should be considered for each traffic calming measure. Emergency response and operational concerns are flagged in this section. Cost: The cost section is intended as a general guide to costs, using high, moderate and low designations for the different devices. 1of14 Traffic Calming Tools Recommended in the Program. Enforcement and Monitoring • Targeted Speed Enforcement • Speed Monitoring Radar Trailer Constrictions and Narrowing • Median • Entry Island • Choker • Neckdown Horizontal Alignment Changes • Traffic Circle Chicane Signing and Striping • Speed Limit Sign • Neighborhood Speed Watch Signs • Roadway Striping Pavement Texture and Color • Textured crosswalks or intersections • Colored pavement in crosswalks or bike lanes Vertical Deflection • Speed Lumps Traffic Calming Tools Not Recommended for use in the Program There are a few traffic calming tools that are not recommended to be included in this toolbox. They are discussed more extensively in the staff report. Generally, the tools that are in the toolbox offer more effective results in addressing the desired outcomes and have fewer negative impacts. Rumble strips are series of pavement bumps that create a "rumble" effect as cars drive over them They are often used to alert drivers as they approach tolls on toll -ways or stop signs on highways in isolated areas. Rumble strips are not effective as speed control devices and do little or nothing to discourage cut -through traffic. In addition, due to the noise they generate, they would be inappropriate to use within neighborhoods. Children at Play Signs are commonly requested in neighborhoods, however, they are not standard traffic control devices and have not been found to be effective in improving the safety of children. Residential areas commonly have children and the presence of signs does not change driving behavior in the neighborhood. One of the disadvantages of the Children at Play sign is that they can create false sense of security, which can increase the potential for accidents and injuries. If the safety of children is the major concern in a neighborhood or at a specific location, there are more effective tools that can be used to improve safety. 2 of 14 • Stop signs are not traffic calming devices. Studies have shown that stop signs that do not meet established criteria have a higher violation rate. Studies also show that vehicle speeds after the vehicle has passed through an unwarranted stop controlled intersection are as high, and occasionally higher, than without a stop sign, as motorists try to "make up" time lost at the stop sign. The acceleration and deceleration near stop signs generates noise and adversely affect air quality. Inappropriate use of stop signs also creates significant delay to emergency vehicles since they are required to nearly come to a stop to verify that the intersection is clear of vehicles prior to entering. • Diverters, street closures, and turn restrictions are measures that alter the existing transportation circulation system In developing a solution it is important not to shift the problem to another neighborhood. Turn restrictions and street closures can cause a tremendous amount of traffic diversion over a wide area. These types of measures have impacts that would need to be evaluated in a greater scope than just within a particular neighborhood. The impacts would include the environmental impacts due to changing the transportation circulation system. Many other cities have policies that ban or discourage street closures. For these reasons, diverters, closures and tum restrictions are not recommended for use as traffic calming measures, but rather should be evaluated as part of a larger area -wide study if their use is to be considered. 3of14 TARGETED SPEED ENFORCEMENT Zef Description: Police presence to monitor speeds and issue formal or courtesy citations. Application: • Streets with documented speeding problem and need for quick mitigation • Locations where restrictions are being violated • Higher volume streets such as major and collector streets Advantages: • Effective while officer actually monitoring traffic • Flexible measure that can be implemented in almost any location at short notice • Personal contact with educational opportunity • Visibility of marked patrol car or motorcycle encourages compliance Disadvantages: • Fines do not typically cover cost of enforcement • Disrupts efficient traffic flow on high volume streets • Short "memory effect" on motorists when enforcement officers no longer present Special Considerations: • Often helpful in school zones • May be used during "learning period" when new devices or restrictions first implemented • Demand for enforcement is greater than available resources Cost: High cost primarily due to the staffing requirements. 4 of 14 ..JY_ SPEED MONITORING RADAR TRAILER Description: Mobile trailer mounted radar display that informs drivers of their speed. Application: • Any street where speeding is a problem Advantages: • Educational tool • Good public relations • Effective for temporary speed reduction needs Disadvantages: • Duration of effectiveness may be limited • Not self enforcing Special Considerations: • Should not be used in remote areas Cost: • Moderate cost to use due to staffing requirements • Expensive to enforce 5of14 NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED WATCH Description: The purpose of the program is to increase motorist awareness of the 25 MPH speed limit on local streets and reduce speeds in our neighborhoods. The program includes: • Neighborhood Informational Canvass • Fliers with accident and speed data and information on targeted enforcement • Neighborhood Speed Awareness Signs • Unique messages and graphics mounted on garbage cans by residents • Targeted Police Enforcement • Police enforce and issue citations during identified problem times Application: • Any residential street where speeding is a problem Advantages: • Educational tool • Directly involves residents in the solution • Effective for temporary speed reduction needs Disadvantages: • Duration of effectiveness may be limited Cost: • Expensive to enforce 6 of 14 NOT 0809T 25 MPH DON• T YOU UNDERSTAND SPEED LIMIT SIGN Description: Signs that define the legal driving speed under normal conditions Application: • Streets where speeding is a problem Advantages: • Provides clear definition of legal speed limit • Provides context for enforcement efforts • Provides goal for traffic calming efforts SPEED LIMIT 25 Disadvantages: • Typically not effective in and of themselves • Not self enforcing • Requires on-going police enforcement • Unrealistically low speed limits are difficult to enforce and tend to be disregarded • More visual pollution from signs in the neighborhood Special Considerations: • Speed limits set by an engineering analysis tend to be higher than limits set by political pressures Cost: • Low; inexpensive to install • High; expensive to enforce 7of14 MEDIAN Description: Raised island in the center of the roadway with one-way traffic on each side Application: • Used on wide streets to narrow each direction of travel and to interrupt sight distances down the center of the roadway Advantages: • Narrowed travel lanes provide 'friction" and can slow vehicle speeds Ali Significant opportunity for landscaping and visual enhancement of the neighborhood Can utilize space which otherwise would be "unused" pavement Can be used to control traffic access to adjacent properties if desired Disadvantages: • Long medians may impact emergency access potential • May interrupt driveway access and result in U -turns • Will require removal of parking if lane is less than 18 feet • May require circuitous access to driveways by residents • Creates a physical obstruction in the travel -way l Variations: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A. • Medians of various lengths can be constructed me • Can be constructed mid -block only to allow all ' turning movements at intersection • Can be extended through intersections to preclude left turning access, or side street through movement, if desired Special Considerations: �. • Vegetation should 'be carefully designed not to obscure visibility between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians at intersection and pedestrian crossing areas [ • Maintain 12 foot wide lane minimum on each side • Maximum length between access points should be 200' to accommodate emergency response -turning radius for a fire truck should be maintained at these breaks • May impact bicycle safety Cost: High cost to construct, landscape and maintain 8 of 14 .%t X �' A It ENTRY ISLAND (NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION ISLAND) Description: A raised island in the center of a two-way street adjacent to an intersection at the perimeter of a neighborhood that identifies the entrance. Application: • Placed in a roadway to define the entry to a residential area and/or to narrow each direction of travel and interrupt sight distance along the center of the roadway Advantages: • Notifies motorists of change in roadway character • Helps slow traffic • Opportunity for landscaping and/or monumentation for aesthetic improvements • May discourage cut -through traffic Disadvantages: • Need for maintenance (and irrigation) • May necessitate removal of parking • Creates physical obstruction in the travel -way Variations: • Can incorporate neighborhood identification signing and monumentation Special Considerations: • Care should be taken not to restrict pedestrian visibility at adjacent crosswalk Cost: • Low to medium cost to install, landscape and maintain 9 of 14 �I Q' 1 I ,J O bald ... —90L --- f 0--- r CHOKERS Description : Raised islands built to narrow the roadway. The islands are detached from the curb line, allowing bike lanes to continue behind the choker. Application: • Typically used adjacent to intersections where parking is restricted • Can be used to narrow roadway and shorten pedestrian crossings Advantages: • Pedestrian crossing distance reduced • Narrowed roadway section may contribute to vehicular speed reduction • Breaks up drivers' line -of -sight Disadvantages: • May create hazard for bicyclists who are less visible to cross street and turning traffic • Creates physical obstruction in the travel way • Will require the removal of parking Special Considerations: • Significant problems with maintenance • Debris builds in bike lane between the choker and the curb line, creating hazard for bicylists Cost: • Moderate 10 of 14 NECIDOWN OR CURB EXTENSION j I�I Description: I Segments of roadway narrowing where roadway edges or curbs are > extended toward the center of the / roadway Application: • Typically used adjacent to inter- :.,. sections where parking is restricted • Can be used to narrow roadway I and shorten pedestrian crossings I Advantages: I • Pedestrian visibility increased and crossing distance reduced • Narrowed roadway section may contribute to vehicular speed reduction • Can "reclaim" pavement for pedestrian and streetscape amenities • Breaks up drivers' line -of -sight FAF !, Disadvantages: • Creates drainage issues where curb and gutter exist • Creates physical obstruction in the travel way • May create hazard for bicyclists • Will require removal of parking Variations: • Mid -block neckdowns often used in conjunction with pedestrian i crossing treatments • Special Considerations: • Curb extensions should not extend into bicycle lanes where present Cost: • Medium to high cost depending on landscaping, pavement treatments and storm drainage considerations 11 of 14 MNUI k l•ll � bho _ pail: i + Application: Any • Any street where speed control is desired • Any street where reduced line -of -sight is desired Advantages: • Aesthetically pleasing • Provides landscaping opportunities • Minimal impact on emergency response Disadvantages: CHICANE Description: A curved street alignment can be designed into new developments or retrofitted in existing rights-of-way. The curvilinear alignment requires additional maneuvering and reduces drivers' line -of -sight. • Expensive • May have little or no impact on cut -through traffic • Needs to be combined with narrowing or other traffic calming tools to have significant impact on speeds • May require additional R.O.W. to be effective Special Considerations: Cannot be used where right-of-way is limited May require removal of on -street parking Cost: • High 12 of 14 L ' TRAFFIC CIRCLE i i Description: Traffic circles are raised circular medians in an intersection with counterclockwise traffic flow. Vehicles --®--' must change their travel path to maneuver around the circle and are typically controlled by "Yield on Entry" j on all approaches. 1 I� Application: 1 • Streets where speed control is r j desired I • Intersections where improved side- n.td.tWI.10 be pieced street access is desired at.r4approach" Advantages: • Provides increased access to street from side street • Slows traffic as it drives around median • Breaks up sight -lines on straight streets • Opportunity for landscaping in the intersection Disadvantages: • Definition of right-of-way is contrary to the "'yield to the vehicle on the right" rule • May impede emergency response and ambulance transport • Relatively expensive if curb extensions are required • May impede left turns by large vehicles • On streets with bicycle facilities, bikes must merge with traffic around circle • Creates physical obstruction in the travel way Variations: • With or without neckdowns • With or without diverter islands Special Considerations: • Need to be used in series or in conjunction with other traffic calming devices • Requires special approval by the Fire Department for use on critical emergency response routes • May require extensive signing • Minimum 20' clearance is required around circle • May require educational campaign and learning period • Should be constructed with mountable curb face to accommodate emergency and large vehicles Cost: High 13 of 14 9 i' Ul= T—T-i - i - r-- GLk ta ri y SPEED LUMPS Description: Speed lumps are similar to speed humps, except they are divided into three lumps with one foot of space between each lump. The space between the lumps is specifically designed to accommodate the axle width of fire vehicles. All other vehicles with smaller axle widths have to go over the humps from at least one side of the vehicle. Speed lumps are typically 12 to 14 feet long and 3 inches high. Application: • Any two-lane residential street where speed control is desired. • The street segment shall be improved with curb and gutter and at least 750 feet long • Shall not be installed within at least 150 feet of the beginning or ending of a curve. • Shall be spaced at a minimum of 100 feet from an intersection. • Usually spaced 300 to 600 feet apart • Could be used in conjunction with other approved traffic calming devices. • The roadway longitudinal grade is 5% or less Advantages: • Effective in reducing speed • Does not require parking removal • Can reduce vehicular volume • Inexpensive compared to chicanes, traffic circles, and median islands Disadvantages: • Increases noise and air pollution near lumps • May cause slight delay on emergency response vehicles other than fire trucks • Not aesthetically pleasing • May divert traffic to parallel streets • May cause discomfort to motorists/passengers with spinal injuries Special Considerations: • Require advance warning signs and object markers at lumps • Should be located adjacent to existing street lights • Difficult to construct precisely. Cost: • Low to medium cost to install 14 of 14 Office of Transportation Page 1 of 2 N. orricc gr TRAN5P1?RTAT11?N 1947 Center St., 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 J510) 981-7010, TDD: (510) 981-6903, transuortationO-ci.berkelev.ca.us TRAFFIC ENGINEERIfdG- TRANSPORTATION PLAN'tdiNG PARKPNG STAFF Traffic Engineering > General Info > Plans & Policies "Traffic Engineering is that phase of engineering which deals with the planning, geometric design and traffic operations of roads, streets, and > Bicycling highways, their networks, terminals, abutting lands, and relationships > Walling with other modes of transportation for the achievement of safe, efficient, and convenient movement of persons and goods." - Institute of > Parking Transportation Engineers (ITE) Yearbook > Traffic Calming The actions and activities of Traffic Engineering staff are guided by a > Traffic Engineering variety of policies and authorities, primarily identified within the Berkeley > Sustainable Trans Municipal Code (BMC). Title 14, "Vehicles and Traffic," of the BMC has been established to ensure consistency in the use and placement of traffic control devices. The title is guided by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the CA Vehicle Code, and the CA Dept. of Transportation Traffic Manual. The Berkeley Municipal Code guides decisions on sign placement. For major and collector streets, stop sign controls on these streets require approval by the City Council. Staff determines if the proposed installations meet Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Caltrans Traffic Manual warrants. If the proposal is part of an overall neighborhood traffic management plan or seems controversial, the report may be first submitted to the Transportation Commission for review at a public meeting. Installation on local streets is at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer. The investigation includes review of traffic volumes/turning movements, approach speeds, pedestrians (especially school children), accident data, and sight visibilities. Multiway stops signs have also been installed at intersections to help reduce the adverse effect of special crime related problems. The stop ahead (symbol) sign may be installed where visibility is restricted, high approach speeds require advance warning, and at unexpected stop sign locations pursuant to the MUTCD and the Caltrans Traffic Manual. For information on specific Traffic Engineering issues, please follow the links below. . Diverters . Speed Humps . Speed Limit . Block Partv Activitv . Traffic Volume Counts - Map http://www. ci .berkeley. ca.usltransportati onitrafficengineeringltrafficengineering. html 9/28/2004 Office of Transportation Page 2 of 2 . Truck Routes . Parkinq Restrictions . Parkinq Restrictions in Fire District . Residential Permit Parkinq Proqram For street sweeping, street lights, or pruning, call Public Works Customer Service at (510) 644-6620 for assistance. For parades or other special events requiring street closure, please call (510) 981-5106. For parking violations , please call (510) 981-7200. City of Berkelev Home / Departments / Ci1v Manager Home Animal Care Services / Budget Division / Neighborhood Services Office of Transportation 1947 Center St., 3rd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-7010 Fax: (510) 981-7060 Email: transportation(&ci.berkelev.ca.us http://www. ci.berkel ey. ca. us/transportati onitraffi cengineeringltraffi cengineering. html 9/28/2004 Town of Danville:: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Page 1 of 1 NTMP Booklet NTMP Glossary E -News Delivery Service E -Government Contact Us Event Calendar Site Map Search: l Town of Danville Neighborhood Traffic Management Program I 90 Guidelines Booklet Prepared by: The Town of Danville Development Services Department 510 La Gonda Way Danville, California 94526 (925) 314-3330 Brian T. Welch, AICP Copyright 1997 © Town of Danville. All rights reserved ............................................................................................................................................ Official site of the Town of Danville, CA. Use subject to Terms of Service. http://www.ci.danville.ca.us/default. asp? servi ceID 1=3 51 &Frame=L 1 9/28/2004 Sep 28 04 12:56p Thomas Obletz P.O. Box 151198 San Rafael, CA 94915-1198 Via Facsimile [415] 485-3133 September 28, 2004 Mrs_ Jeanne Leoncini City Clerk City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 re: September 28, 2004 Special- Public Hearing - ®raft San Rafael General Plan - Trafiic Mitigation Fee Ordinance Hear Mrs. ! eoncini: Please include the attached letter in the Councilmembers' packets for tonight's Special Meeting. Thank you. Reqejrds, r Thomas Obletz p.1 SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER of COMMERCE 817 Mission Avenue • San Rafael, CA 94901 • (415) 454-4163 • FAX: (415) 454-7039 NOTE: LETTER READ INTO THE RECORD BY ELISSA GI [IBASTI "PII , S.R. September 28, 2004 CH,I11?EER OF C011111ERCE @ SPECIAL PUBLIC HEAR - I IG FIELD TUESDAY, 9/26/04. To: Mayor Boro and City Council Members J. -MO -L. From: Elissa Giambastiani, President/CEO Re: Amendments to the Traffic Mitigation Fee Ordinance In reviewing the staff report and the list of proposed traffic improvements, we understand why staff is proposing this huge increase in traffic mitigation fees. However, we an very concerned that this increase will have the result of stopping any new housing or commercial developments proposed for the city. We think that you will be killing the golden goose if you adopt this proposed fee increase. The General Plan already reduces the amount of future conunercial development. If you adopt these fees, you'll have none. It is very unlikely that San Rafael will have any new housing developments with 50 percent or more of the units restricted to low or moderate income households. So the 50 percent discount is meaningless. However, this increase means that even a small project of six units would trigger a fee of $42,000 based on the $7,000 per trip proposal. This mitigation fee will be on top of the housing mitigation fee if the development was not able to provide an affordable unit. Multiply this by 99 for the Loch Lomond development, and the fee goes up to $693,000. The discount for downtown cultural or entertainment projects will not be enough to encourage this type of development downtown. For example: Century Theatres is estimating about 400 new trips for the proposed Cineplex. Even with a 40 percent discount, the traffic mitigation fee will be $1.7 million dollars. If Circuit City expands in its new location with an increase of 200 trips, for example, the traffic mitigation fee will be $1.4 million. What will happen with Marin Square? This is a redevelopment we really want. The property has over 100,000 square feet, and the redevelopment will certainly be more than 5,000 square feet. How much will the new owner have to pay for traffic mitigation? What will the Marin Community Clinic have to pay if it wants to open a clinic in the Canal? We understand that other corn mudties have traffic mitigation fees, but Marin's land costs, plus the cost of the planning process, put us near the top in the eyes of developers. srcc@sanrafaelchamber.com • www.sanrafaelchamber.com Traffic Mitigation Fees Page 2 We have several suggestions to make: 1. The list of traffic improvements should be reviewed, and all improvements that are unlikely to be developed in 10 years should be removed from the list of Planned Circulation Improvements to reduce the total cost of improvements to be mitigated. Examples: the Kerner Blvd. to Anderson Drive undercrossing ($8 million); the pedestrian bridge to connect the Canal with Andersen Drive ($4 million). 2. Since the City desperately needs sales tax revenue, we suggest that it include a substantial retail discount. 3. It will be difficult enough to achieve our ABAG housing numbers without fee increases, so we think that the 50 percent discount should be extended to all housing developments that include an affordable housing component. 4. The City should hold an informal discussion with developers to ascertain the kinds of fee increases that could be economically viable. The Chamber would be happy to bring such a group of business people together. We feel strongly that more discussion needs to occur, particularly with prospective developers, before the City Council adopts an increase as extreme as that proposed in this staff report.