City presents traffic-calming policy update after five pilot studies; staff recommends tiered investigation and funding approach

City staff presented an update of Cathedral City's traffic-calming policy and guidelines at the Jan. 8 study session, summarizing five pilot studies completed in 2024, a two-part investigation-and-implementation process and recommended next steps for low-cost city actions and larger neighborhood plans.

City Engineer Armando Baldizzone said staff created a traffic-calming committee, procured temporary devices in 2024 (including speed-feedback trailers and portable radar) and implemented investigations at five locations starting in July 2024. "Traffic calming is not one thing," Baldizzone told the council, describing the effort as aligned with the General Plan circulation and the city's Active Transportation Plan.

Under the proposed policy, investigations (Part A) follow a six-step protocol: identify a segment, deploy hidden radar, install speed-feedback signs, conduct police enforcement plus feedback signage, install temporary speed ramps if needed, then prepare a memorandum with findings and funding recommendations. Baldizzone described numeric thresholds for advancing from investigation to implementation: the 80th percentile vehicle speed must exceed 35 mph or at least 70% of measured vehicle speeds must be above 25 mph; meeting one or both thresholds allows progression to Part B (permanent measures). In the five pilot segments, staff reported examples where feedback signs reduced average speeds — one Whispering Palm Trail segment showed an 80th-percentile speed fall from 35 to 30 mph and average speed decline from 35 to 25 mph after feedback signs were added.

Part B addresses actions: immediate, low-cost city actions (centerline striping, upgraded 25-mph signs with flashing beacons, increased enforcement) can proceed if funding exists in Public Works operations, assessment district funds, council district improvement funds or the Capital Improvement Program. Localized measures (single streets) require at least 75% resident support on the affected street; neighborhood-scale plans require additional outreach, may use grants or financing mechanisms such as an assessment district, and can take years to complete.

Council members pressed staff on timelines and communication. Mayor Pro Tem Tim Gregory praised the scientific approach and urged faster notification when studies are completed: "I do appreciate what's going on here," he said, but asked that completed speed studies be included in weekly or monthly reports so council members and residents know when results are available. Council member Gutierrez asked whether a resident from an affected street could sit on the traffic committee; staff responded that public involvement occurs after the scientific investigation to avoid biasing automated traffic measurements. Staff also agreed to clarify mailings to include "resident and/or occupant" so tenants receive notification in addition to property owners.

Staff highlighted trade-offs: vertical deflection devices such as speed humps can slow emergency response times (staff cited a 7–10 second delay per hump in some cases), may generate noise, and can shift traffic to adjacent streets. Fire, police and other affected agencies will be consulted for safety review; measures that impede emergency response can be disallowed. The council discussed funding options and requested that staff include study results in regular reports and consider a budget line item for small traffic-calming projects.

The presentation was for discussion; no ordinance or binding action was taken at the Jan. 8 study session. Staff indicated the policy will return for future adoption once council guidance and any funding decisions are addressed.