REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Consider and Approve Amendments to Council Policy 1.2.4 (Traffic Calming) to Update Policy Purpose, Thresholds, Measures, and Process (Study Issue DPW 22-06)
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Study examined traffic calming programs and best practices from eight (8) comparable cities within the Bay Area and compared them to Sunnyvale’s policy and program. The Study compared roadway classification criteria, speed and volume thresholds, traffic calming measures, implementation stages and procedures. Attachment 1 is the draft final report.
After reviewing all the information gathered and feedback received, Staff recommends the following changes to the City’s Traffic Calming Policy and Program:
• Update the traffic calming definition and add program objectives.
• Maintain the 50% petition requirement to initiate Stage 1 Traffic Calming Study.
• Expand the program to include Residential Collectors with only a speed threshold (no volume threshold).
• Select Stage 2 traffic calming measures that would manage speed but would not negatively impact emergency vehicle access and response time.
• Remove the 95th percentile speed threshold and refine the 85th percentile speed threshold language for local residential streets.
• Add Community Outreach and Education to the Stage 1 Traffic Calming Measure toolkit and Raised Intersection to the Stage 2 Traffic Calming Measure toolkit.
• Remove the “100% resident support living within 100 feet of a proposed Stage 2 Traffic Calming Measure” requirement.
• Improve the program communication by developing and maintaining project webpage.
BACKGROUND
Council adopted Council Policy 1.2.4 Traffic Calming in February 1997 (RTC No. 97-409) to assist in the consideration and implementation of traffic calming measures in residential neighborhoods where speed limits are currently set at 25mph. Anything with a higher speed limit is not classified as a local residential street and therefore not considered eligible for calming under the current program. The policy is based on an evaluation of the benefits and issues associated with implementation of traffic calming measures. Subsequently, the City established a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) based on the policy purpose, policy statement, the process and thresholds as outlined in Council Policy 1.2.4.
The NTCP was last updated in 2004, and a handbook was created to guide the community on what is traffic calming, what are traffic calming measures, and how to apply for traffic calming in their neighborhood. Since then, the City has received requests for traffic calming from various neighborhoods, but few have qualified under the established thresholds as they did not meet either the roadway classification criteria or the traffic conditions thresholds.
With the passage of 20 years since the last update to the NTCP, Study Issue DPW 22-06 (RTC No. 22-0277) was proposed to re-evaluate the City’s Traffic Calming Policy and Program. At the February 17, 2022 Study Issues and Budget Proposals Workshop, Council ranked Study Issue DPW 22-06 second. Subsequently, at the May 19, 2022 City Council Budget Workshop, Council approved to include funding for Study Issue DPW 22-06 in the FY 2022/23 Recommended Budget. The key elements of the approved study included a review of the current process and methods in Sunnyvale’s NTCP and comparison to other cities’ programs. The Study also included a re-evaluation of thresholds and criteria that determine whether a street is eligible for traffic calming measures. These thresholds and criteria include the volume and speed of traffic and the roadway classification of eligible streets. Furthermore, the Study evaluated existing and new traffic calming measures and their effectiveness. And lastly, the Study identified possible updates to Council Policy 1.2.4 as well as modifications to the City’s NTCP Handbook.
EXISTING POLICY
General Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use and Transportation Element:
• Policy LT-3.16: Support neighborhood traffic calming and parking policies that protect internal residential areas from citywide and regional traffic, consistent with engineering criteria, operating parameters, and resident preferences.
• Policy LT-3.22(f): Actively evaluate possible candidate locations for alternative traffic control installations (e.g. roundabouts, curb extensions) in order to provide “Stage 2” traffic calming for minor residential streets, particularly in locations with a significant collision history.
• Policy LT-8.5(c): Support traffic calming to slow down vehicles in order to promote safety for non-motorists.
General Plan, Chapter 6, Safety and Noise Element:
• Policy SN-3.1 Provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies.
• Goal SN-5 Provide a fire response system that will control the spread of fire in buildings and other properties and maintain minimal casualties and property loss from fire and other related emergencies.
• Policy SN-6.1 Provide immediate life support to those threatened by situations requiring emergency medical services or rescue.
Council Policy 1.2.4 Traffic Calming - To assist in the implementation of policies contained in the consideration and implementation of traffic calming measures.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered constitutes a “project’ as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) but is exempt under the common sense exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The amendments to the traffic calming policy do not approve any specific projects that would have an impact on the environment. Specific projects undertaken pursuant to policy will undergo individual environmental review. It is anticipated that most such projects will fall under the Class 1 exemption for alterations to existing streets that do not create additional vehicle lanes (CEQA Guidelines 15301(c)). However, it is possible to see that projects on residential collector streets may result in the diversion from one collector to another, or diversion of traffic to a less efficient route lengthening trip time, thereby impacting other neighborhoods or overall air quality.
DISCUSSION
The current NTCP includes two stages of traffic calming measures. Only non-physical measures are implemented in Stage 1, whereas physical measures are implemented in Stage 2. The following summarizes the actions taken at each individual stage under the current NTCP.
Stage 1 Traffic Calming Study:
1. Residents report the problem - The street must be classified as Local Residential Street to qualify for evaluation.
2. Study area identification - Staff identify potentially impacted study area .
3. Neighborhood Consensus - Requestor obtains a petition from more than 50% of residents in the neighborhood within the study area.
4. Data Collection - Staff will collect traffic volume and speed data for the following:
• Speed Problem Thresholds:
o If the 85th percentile speed is above 32 miles per hour (mph) for a posted speed limit of 25 mph, or
o If the 95th percentile speed is above 35 mph for a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
• Cut-through Problem Threshold
o If the average daily traffic is more than 1,000 vehicles per day (vpd).
5. Stage 1 Traffic Calming
• If at least one of the thresholds is met, staff implements non-physical measures such as Radar Speed Trailer Deployment, traffic enforcement, traffic signing and pavement markers, etc.
6. Follow-up Data Collection
• Collect speed/volume data after a minimum of 6 months to determine if Stage 1 measures are effective
If the follow-up data shows that the cut-thru/speeding issues still exist, then a Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study will be initiated.
Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study:
1. Engineering Evaluation - Staff will evaluate if there are physical measures that could be implemented.
2. Neighborhood Consensus - At least 60% of the impacted residents and 100% of the residents within 100 feet of the proposed device shall support the installation through a vote. If a resident does not vote, that counts as a “no” vote.
3. Coordination with Department of Public Safety (DPS) - DPS must approve the plan to assure that emergency response times or access are not negatively affected.
4. City Council Consideration for Approval and Funding Allocation
The Study examined traffic calming programs and best practices from eight (8) comparable cities within the Bay Area and compared them to Sunnyvale’s policy and program (Attachment 2). Seven of the eight cities have either modified or adopted their NTCP within the last eight years. Staff compared roadway classification criteria, speed and volume thresholds, traffic calming measures, implementation stages and procedures.
First Community Meeting and Online Survey
On November 7, 2023, the City held the first community meeting to introduce the Study, present an overview of the City’s existing program, and gather community input related to the program. In addition to the community meeting, an online survey was also launched to allow the public to provide their input on traffic calming measures, process, and concerns. The online survey was opened from October 31 to December 7, 2023 and received 37 responses. Most of the concerns heard were related to speeding, pedestrian safety, and cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. Comments regarding the policy and program stated that there are too many steps in the process, and some expressed the thresholds are too hard to meet. Some residents expressed their appreciation to include the neighborhood support element in the program. They generally believed that the program is difficult to understand and to use. The top preferred traffic calming measures were speed humps, traffic circles and speed tables.
Coordination with Department of Public Safety
Staff met with staff from the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (DPS) to introduce the background and purpose of the study and explain the different types of traffic calming measures currently in the City’s toolkit. Overall, DPS had concerns with some of the Stage 2 traffic calming measures such as traffic circles and speed humps. Specifically, their concerns were that fire apparatus will not be able to maneuver over them or could be damaged by them, as well as an increase to their emergency response time. DPS Operations team drove to locations where previously installed traffic circles and speed humps are located and confirmed that the fire apparatus could maneuver over them without impacting their vehicles nor their response times on Local Residential Streets.
DPS staff are concerned that expanding the NTCP to include Residential Collector Streets In particular their concern is that installing Stage 2 traffic calming devices on residential collector streets---may affect their response times. Their travel routes to emergencies relies on travel on arterials and collectors. Additionally, local traffic typically funnels to collector streets to travel to arterials. Adding traffic calming measures on residential collectors would slow larger volumes of vehicles, potentially creating longer response times for DPS emergency vehicles.
City Council Study Session
Staff presented the findings of the study to City Council on June 18, 2024 (RTC No. 24-0458) to obtain feedback. Council provided direction on the existing traffic calming program. These included:
• Update the definition of traffic calming
• Add objectives
• Consider changes in request initiation
• Expand qualifying roadway classification criteria
• Update speed and volume thresholds
• Add traffic calming measures
• Increase and improve program communication
• Update neighborhood consensus thresholds
• Update and clarify program procedure
Second Community Meeting
On September 23, 2024, Staff held a second Community Meeting and presented possible changes to the program below. These possible changes were based upon Council’s direction to staff and staff’s evaluation of Sunnyvale’s traffic conditions and comparison to similar cities’ programs. Community feedback was heard regarding the following possible changes, discussed in more detail below:
• Update definition and add program objectives
• Reduce initial petition support requirement
• Expand the program to residential collectors
• Remove the 95th percentile speed threshold while maintaining both 85th percentile speed and volume threshold
• Add Community Outreach/Education as Stage 1 traffic calming measures
• Add Raised Intersection as Stage 2 traffic calming measures
• Remove the “100% resident support living within 100 feet from the device requirement”
• Update program procedure and communication
A discussion of each recommended change to the NTCP are outlined below, reflecting comments from the Council and the Community.
Update Traffic Calming Definition and Add Program Objectives
Revised Traffic Calming definition for the program handbook and webpage:
Traffic calming employs a combination of non-physical and physical measures to reduce cut-through traffic and speeding issues in residential neighborhoods, improve quality of life for residents as well as the comfort level for non-vehicular road users.
New Traffic Calming Objectives:
1. Encourage responsible driving
2. Discourage non-residential cut-through traffic on local residential streets
3. Maintain emergency vehicle response times
4. Reduce the need for police enforcement post traffic calming
Members of the community have expressed they would like “safety” to be included as part of the definition and/or objectives. However, the main objective of traffic calming is to slow down traffic and reduce cut-through traffic in a residential neighborhood. Traffic calming projects are mainly focused on ways to modify driver’s behavior to improve compliance with the speed thresholds and reduce the desire to cut through the neighborhoods based on the volume thresholds. While this may improve safety in some areas, the main focus is on the quality of life of the neighborhood based on the planned speed and volumes of traffic on the neighborhood roadways. If there are documented safety concerns on a particular roadway that is not typically treated as a traffic calming project, but is reviewed separately to determine if any improvements are necessary.
Staff recommends updating the definition and adding objectives as discussed above.
Reduce Initial Petition Support Requirement
The current program requires a petition with more than 50% neighborhood support to initiate Stage 1 Traffic Calming Study and no petition is required to initiate Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study. Other cities require a lower percentage or a single resident request to initiate a Stage 1 Traffic Calming Study; however, most cities require a petition to initiate Stage 2 Traffic Calming.
Pros
• Easier to initiate a traffic calming request for residents
Cons
• Results in additional traffic calming studies and city resources as the initial petition requirement is reduced
• Require more staff resources and funding to process the additional requests
• Less than 50% support means we do not have a majority who share the same concerns
• Require a second petition to initiate Stage 2 measures to ensure majority support prior to consideration of physical traffic calming measures
Much of the feedback received agrees with having a more than 50% petition threshold. Some would like to see it lowered to one resident, two residents, or 10% of the neighborhood to make it easier to initiate the traffic calming effort.
Having a petition with more than 50% support early in the process can verify that there is a widespread concern within the neighborhood. If this requirement is reduced, a new requirement should be added to the NTCP, which requires a more than 50% support petition to initiate Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study to align with other cities’ programs.
Staff recommends keeping the existing requirement of a petition with more than 50% support for implementing a Stage 1 traffic calming study.
Expand the program to include Residential Collectors
Some of the feedback requested expanding the program to include residential collectors. The feedback expressed desires to be able to implement traffic calming on these streets since they are predominately residential land uses and experience higher speeds and volumes than other residential streets. It was noted that certain Stage 1 measures such as radar speed feedback signs and in-street pavement signs have already been implemented on some residential collectors.
Based on the review of other cities’ NTCP, four cities include residential collectors in their program, and one city includes both residential collectors and arterials in their program. The other three include only local residential streets.
Pros
• Address potential speeding and volume issues on residential collectors
• Respond to requests that could improve residents’ quality of life
Cons
• There are 48 residential collectors in the City, and therefore, additional staff resources would be required if residential collectors were added
• May impact emergency response times
• May result in traffic diversion to local residential streets
• Limited traffic calming measures are applicable
With an expansion to the NTCP to include residential collectors, staff recommends that different qualifying criteria shall be set for residential collector traffic calming studies. This is intended to minimize traffic diversion to local residential streets. The proposed criteria are shown as follow:
1. Speed Threshold - 85th percentile speed greater than posted speed limit +7 mph
2. No volume threshold requirement
In addition, when determining the type of Stage 2 (physical) measures to be implemented, special consideration should be made for emergency vehicle access and travel times, and therefore limited measures would be available for consideration. As currently occurs, the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Traffic Division staff would coordinate with DPS staff on the specific location and potential traffic calming devices prior to finalizing staff’s recommendations for the Stage 2 measures. DPS must approve the plan to assure that emergency response times or access are not negatively affected.
Although the City’s current program does not include residential collectors, Staff does review resident concerns on residential collectors using other methods. Evaluations are completed to identify feasible improvements based on various Council approved plans (e.g., Vision Zero Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Roadway Safety Plan).
Staff recommends expanding the program to include residential collectors with only a speed threshold (no volume threshold). Select Stage 2 traffic calming measures that would manage speed but would not negatively impact emergency vehicle access and response time would be considered on residential collectors. For example, speed humps would manage speed, however they could negatively impact response times of emergency vehicles on residential collectors, so speed cushions could be proposed instead. Speed humps raise the elevation of the entire width of the roadway, where speed cushions have “cut-outs” in the hump for the wheels of an emergency vehicle to pass through without traveling over the hump.
Remove the 95th Percentile Speed Threshold and Refine the 85th Percentile Speed Threshold Language for Local Residential Streets
Pros
• Focuses on speeding issues that are prevalent vs. caused by outlier speeders
Cons
• Relies on police enforcement to address these outlier speeders
The City’s NTCP currently uses both 85th percentile speed exceeding 32 mph or the 95th percentile speed exceeding 35 mph as speed thresholds for a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Based on the review with the other cities’ NTCP, only Sunnyvale uses the 95th percentile speed threshold. In reviewing historical traffic calming requests, this threshold has never been met without meeting the 85th percentile threshold. Therefore, staff supports removing this requirement from the program.
Staff recommends refining the language for the 85th percentile speed threshold for local residential streets to “85th percentile speed greater than posted speed limit +7 mph” to align with the recommended speed threshold language for residential collectors. For local residential streets, the 85th percentile speed threshold of 32 mph is equivalent to the posted speed limit of 25 mph +7 mph.
The City’s current volume threshold of 1,000 vpd for local residential streets is aligned with other cities’ programs and no change is recommended.
The feedback received was mostly clarifications on how the 85th percentile speed data is being analyzed and what 85th percentile speed is. Members of the public did not express any concern with removing the 95th percentile speed threshold.
Add Community Outreach and Education in the Stage 1 Traffic Calming Measures Toolkit
Pros
• Provide a forum for residents to discuss concerns
• Inform the community on the benefits of traffic calming
• Educate residents who occasionally speed within the residential neighborhood
• Low-cost relative to other measures
Cons
• Cultural and language barriers may dissuade residents from participating
• Require additional staff resources
• Unproven and potentially limited effectiveness
A resident mentioned that this may not be effective since some of the speeders are not from the area and won’t be able to attend during the outreach.
Staff recommends adding community outreach and education in the Stage 1 Traffic Calming Measures toolkit. As lower cost compared to other measures, it could potentially improve awareness of the issues within the impacted community. It would also increase awareness of traffic calming goals and the City’s program.
Add Raised Intersection in the Stage 2 Traffic Calming Measures Toolkit
Pros
• Calm two streets at once
• Can reduce cut-through traffic and speeding
• Improve pedestrian safety by slowing down vehicles at common crossing locations
Cons
• May impede emergency response vehicles and truck travel times
• Higher construction cost and increased maintenance
Staff recommends adding Raised Intersection in the Stage 2 Traffic Calming Measures toolkit. This will provide an additional option for Staff to consider, especially at locations where two intersecting streets both qualify for traffic calming.
Remove the “100% Resident Support Living within 100 feet from the Device” Criteria in Stage 2
Pros
• Easier to select a location for the device
• Shorter process to install a device
Cons
• Residents with frontage at the proposed device location might object
Staff recommends removing this requirement. Most of the other cities studied require 60% or more neighborhood support to approve the proposed traffic calming device installation, and only one city requires a 100% resident support fronting the proposed device. Removing this aligns with other cities’ program.
Most of the community are in favor with a lower threshold to approve the installation of a traffic calming device. There are measures in the traffic calming toolkit that do have noise impact to the residents.
Improve Program Communication
Updating the program handbook and creating a program webpage can provide a direct and simple way to communicate with residents. The webpage may include, but is not limited to, program definition and objectives, traffic calming process flow chart, roadway classification map, speed and volume thresholds, status of resident requests, and links to the Traffic Calming Policy, NTCP handbook, Traffic Calming Request Form, and information on other traffic related City programs and how the resident’s concerns could be addressed through the other programs.
Pros
• Improve program transparency and clarity
• Direct resident requests to the most appropriate City program
• Residents can view status updates on traffic calming requests
Cons
• Require additional staff resources to update ongoing projects
The community expressed that improving the program’s transparency would help them understand the process better and provide clarity. It was also suggested that aside from creating a program webpage, Traffic Calming Request status should also be published in City’s Horizon publication to create awareness and accessibility to the program.
Staff recommends improving program communication on an ongoing basis as discussed above.
Summary of Recommended Changes
After reviewing all the information and feedback received, Staff recommends the following changes to the City’s Traffic Calming Policy and Program:
• Update the traffic calming definition and add program objectives
• Maintain the 50% petition requirement to initiate Stage 1 Traffic Calming Study
• Expand the program to include Residential Collectors with only a speed threshold (no volume threshold). Select Stage 2 traffic calming measures that would manage speed but will not negatively impact emergency vehicle access and response time.
• Remove the 95th percentile speed threshold and refine the 85th percentile speed threshold language for local residential streets
• Add Community Outreach and Education to the Stage 1 Traffic Calming Measure toolkit
• Add Raised Intersection to the Stage 2 Traffic Calming Measure toolkit
• Remove the “100% resident support living within 100 feet of a proposed Stage 2 Traffic Calming Measure” requirement.
• Improve the program communication by developing and maintaining a project webpage
A redlined version of the adopted Council Policy 1.2.4 Traffic Calming with recommended changes can be found in Attachment 3.
FISCAL IMPACT
Implementation of the recommended changes would require additional funds and staff resources. The largest anticipated increase in resources is expected from the following recommendations:
• Add Stage 1 Community Outreach and Education;
• Expand to include 48 residential collectors; and
• Develop and maintain program communication.
Staff estimates the additional cost to implement Alternative 1 is $15,000 per year and the addition of a Part Time Transportation Engineer at a cost of approximately $140,000 per year.
Support from the Office of the City Manager’s Communications team will also be required.
The cost estimate to implement Stage 2 traffic calming measures, including the addition of the raised intersection to the Stage 2 traffic calming measure toolkit, will be determined as part of the Stage 2 traffic calming study. It will be presented to City Council for approval and funding allocation for each study location.
The additional resources required to implement these changes are an estimate. Staff recommends that a Budget Supplement that fully refines the program resourcing be included for consideration with the FY 2025/26 Recommended Budget.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council meeting agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board at City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Public Library and in the Department of Public Safety Lobby. In addition, the agenda and this report are available at the NOVA Workforce Services reception desk located on the first floor of City Hall at 456 W. Olive Avenue (during normal business hours), and on the City's website.
In addition, residents who have requested updates as well as those who subscribed to the project mailing list were notified by email about the City Council meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Amendments to Council Policy 1.2.4 Traffic Calming as defined in Attachment 3.
2. Approve Amendments to Council Policy 1.2.4 Traffic Calming as defined in Attachment 3 with modifications.
3. Direct staff to include a Budget Supplement to fund the recommended changes with the FY 2025/26 Recommended Budget.
4. Other direction as provided by Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternatives 1 and 3:
1) Approve Amendments to Council Policy 1.2.4 Traffic Calming as defined in Attachment 3; and
3) Direct Staff to include a Budget Supplement to fund the recommended changes with the FY2025/26 Recommended Budget.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
New developments and higher density residential in Sunnyvale have increased the amount of congestion on the City’s major roadways, which can result in increased cut-through traffic and speeding on neighborhood streets. Updating the current policy and program as well as improving our program communication can make it easier to implement traffic calming measures and be responsive and transparent to the community.
Levine Act
LEVINE ACT
The Levine Act (Gov. Code Section 84308) prohibits city officials from participating in certain decisions regarding licenses, permits, and other entitlements for use if the official has received a campaign contribution of more than $250 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant in the previous 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
A check in the checklist below indicates that the action being considered falls under a Levine Act category or exemption:
SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
___ Land development entitlements
___ Other permit, license, or entitlement for use
___ Contract or franchise
EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
___ Competitively bid contract
___ Labor or personal employment contract
_x_ General policy and legislative actions
Prepared by: Joshua Llamas, Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: Angela Obeso, Interim Transportation and Traffic Manager
Reviewed by: Chip Taylor, Director, Public Works
Reviewed by: Sarah Johnson-Rios, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Tim Kirby, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Potential Changes to the Sunnyvale Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Memo
2. Comparison of Traffic Calming Program in Comparable Cities
3. Redline of Proposed Changes to Council Policy 1.2.4 Traffic Calming