City Council

Joseph Genovese, Traffic Engineer
Traffic Engineering and Signals

1. Hold a public hearing concerning the adoption of a fee for processing applications for the installation of traffic calming devices.

2. Adopt a resolution establishing a policy for the installation of traffic calming devices in streets in residential neighborhoods, including a fee for processing applications for the installation of such devices.

The proposed policy is based on reviewing the experiences of other cities. Critical issues are:

1. Who will pay? The attached proposed resolution requires residents to install calming devices at their expense. Only under special circumstances such as commuter traffic using the street as a bypass to avoid congestion on an arterial street, will the City consider participation in the cost of installation. Ventura County and the City of Ventura require residents to pay for the installation of calming devices.

2. Which streets? Minor residential streets that are not bus routes or important fire routes. Streets that do not serve as collectors for a significant area. Traffic flow of 1,700 vehicles per day or less is recommended as one of the definitions of a minor residential street.

3. What percentage of households must approve? A 75% approval percentage is recommended. People have varying tolerance for neighborhood speeding. At the same time, people have strong opinions for and against the use of devices like speed humps. A 75% required approval percentage will reduce the need for removing devices once they are placed.

4. Will the problem move to an adjacent street? Careful consideration must be given to unintended impacts to the neighborhood. The entire neighborhood street system must be analyzed. Cities report that if speed humps are a little lower in height, there is less shifting of traffic to parallel streets.

5. What fee should be charged for processing an application for the installation of traffic calming devices? Section IIIB of City Council Resolution No. 11,271 sets out the City Council's policy to set fees to recover the direct and indirect costs of services as provided by City staff. The City Clerk must determine whether applications for the installation of traffic calming devices meet the criteria set out in the policy.

The Traffic Engineer must determine whether the street in question is eligible for installation of the devices, determine whether the required number of residents has signed the application, prepare a traffic study, including a determination of traffic counts, vehicle speed, and whether traffic would be shifted to other streets, determine whether installation of such devices is appropriate, determine feasible alternative devices, prepare estimates of the cost of installing such devices, meet with the neighborhood to discuss the traffic study and such determinations, obtain the Fire Department's review of recommended devices, and prepare an agenda for the City Council's consideration of a recommendation to install such devices.

The City Council must hold a hearing to approve, modify, condition or deny a recommendation for the installation of such devices.

If installation is approved, City staff must prepare standard plans for such installation to be included in the encroachment permit for the work.

The direct and indirect costs of the foregoing staff work, based on a conservative estimate of the amount of staff time required, result in a recommended processing fee of $553. Such fee is no higher than necessary to recover such costs. If an application is rejected or not pursued by the neighborhood at some point after filing, the unearned portion of the fee will be returned.

There will be an increase to the City's street maintenance costs for maintenance of traffic signs and markings associated with traffic calming devices. When streets with street humps are resurfaced, there is an additional cost to the City to remove and replace the speed humps.

Attachment 1 - Resolution Establishing a Policy for the Use of Traffic Calming Devices in Residential
                           Neighborhoods
                               - Exhibit A to Resolution
Attachment 2 - Calculation of Processing Fee

        WHEREAS, the decision whether to install such devices should be based on principles that apply throughout the City.

        NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Oxnard resolves to adopt the policy and the fee for installation of traffic calming devices in residential neighborhoods set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

        PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS        day of                 , 1998, by the following vote:

        AYES:

        NAYS:

        ABSENT:

ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Attachment 1
Page 1 of 4

G. A processing fee of $553.00, which shall include fees to collect data and prepare a traffic study and standard plans to accompany an encroachment permit.

H. If the petition is returned as set out below, the Traffic Engineer shall return the portion of the processing fee that has not been used.

B. The Traffic Engineer shall determine whether the street is eligible for the installation of traffic calming devices and whether the petition was signed by the required number of residents. If either criterion is not met, the Traffic Engineer shall so notify the petitioners' representative and return the petition to him or her.

C. If the Traffic Engineer determines that the street is eligible and that the petition has been properly signed, the Traffic Engineer shall prepare or cause to be prepared a traffic study of the street, including traffic counts, vehicle speed, existing traffic signs and whether installation of traffic calming devices would result in a significant transfer of traffic to other residential streets.

D. When the traffic study is complete, the Traffic Engineer shall determine whether the installation of traffic calming devices in the street, at the locations selected by the petitioners or elsewhere, is appropriate.

E. If the Traffic Engineer determines that the installation of traffic calming devices in the street is not appropriate, the Traffic Engineer shall so notify the petitioner's representative and return the petition to him or her.

F. If the Traffic Engineer determines that the installation of traffic calming devices in the street is appropriate, the Traffic Engineer shall determine feasible alternative traffic calming

Attachment 1
Page 3 of 4

G. The petitioners' representative, on request of the Traffic Engineer, shall schedule a meeting among the Traffic Engineer, the petitioners' committee and the chairpersons of the neighborhood council, if any, for the neighborhood in which the street is located. At the meeting, the group shall discuss the traffic study, the Traffic Engineer's determinations, and the petitioners' and neighborhood council's concerns. The group shall decide on a recommendation to the City Council concerning the installation of traffic calming devices.

H. The Traffic Engineer shall obtain the Fire Department's review of any recommendation.

I. The Traffic Engineer shall prepare an agenda item for the City Council to consider the recommendation.

B. If the City Council approves the installation of traffic calming devices, and the petitioners wish to install the devices as so approved, the petitioners or their contractor shall obtain City encroachment permit for the work. City staff shall prepare standard plans to be incorporated into the encroachment permit.

C. The petitioners shall bear all costs of the issuance of permits, construction, inspection and maintenance of traffic calming devices. Such costs are not included in the processing fee set out in Section III G. The petitioners shall be responsible for arranging for payment of such costs.

D. Notwithstanding section C immediately above, the Traffic Engineer may request the City Council to consider approving the use of City funds to pay for all or part of the cost of installing traffic calming devices when the traffic study demonstrates that one or both of the following conditions exist on the street in which traffic calming devices will be installed:

        (1) At least 25% of the p.m. peak hour traffic originates on a major highway and exits the neighborhood at another major highway.

        (2) An unusually high number of speed related collisions continue to occur after a six month trial period using standard traffic control measures.

Attachment 1
Page 4 of 4

This process -- as in so many others -- puts public servants above their masters, the people who pay them. At every point in this proposed procedure, any bureaucrat can thwart the will of City residents rather than directly and speedily resolve the problem.

They have done this by penning tortuous and technical requirements to render virtually any petition technically invalid. These invalidations are effected, of course, at will of bureaucrat, not by direct action of either the people or their elected representatives.

Adding to those insults, this proposed policy has we taxpayers paying additional monies for services we've already paid for! The memo and its attachments do not cite a need for additional personnel. The traffic technician, the traffic engineer, the fire inspector and the assistant city clerk are all already being paid by us to perform such services for us.

Therefore, the proposed fee constitutes yet another "hidden tax" to bolster City revenues. It also frees our City Fathers from chopping their already-bloated bureaucracy and misdirected budget.

They buttress all this with reference to their own convoluted permits and permissions process. "We've shot ourselves in the foot so now you get to pay for it -- again and again!"

By definition, all traffic problems have been created by permissions granted by this or previous City Councils!

Therefore, the costs of resolving all traffic problems should be borne by the City via the taxes we have already paid.

Should the City counter-argue that the bulk of our monies are going to Sacramento, then I suggest our City Fathers band with their peers in other California cities to rectify that real problem.

Roger G. Pariseau, Jr.
Chairman, Fremont North Neighborhood Council
September 8, 1998

Traffic calming can speed up drivers' ire, July 10, 2002, Christian Science Monitor