Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues traffic‑calming policy after debate over thresholds, renters and costs
Summary
Council reviewed a draft traffic‑calming program that sets qualifying criteria (500‑ft minimum length, ADT ~800, speed thresholds) and debated whether to require 75% or lower (66%) property‑owner support, whether renters should be allowed to sign, and how costs would be split; council continued the item for staff to return with a final draft.
Engineering staff presented a draft Traffic Calming Program that would establish qualifying criteria and procedures for residential speed mitigation requests.
The staff presentation explained the technical thresholds under consideration: a minimum study length (about 500 feet), an average daily traffic (ADT) threshold of about 800 vehicles, and a preliminary speed‑violation metric (for example, 5% of vehicles exceeding 30 mph). The draft also proposed a high adjacent‑property owner consent threshold (75%) and included placeholders for installation and removal costs.
"These are relatively uniform throughout these programs," the engineering presenter said while describing the common 75% adjacent‑owner threshold used in other jurisdictions. Council member Ruppel proposed lowering that threshold to two‑thirds (66%) to balance neighborhood support and practicality. Council members raised operational concerns, including whether renters should be permitted to sign petitions, how to collect and enforce cost shares (staff said installation could cost roughly $5,000–$10,000 per typical device depending on the type), and emergency‑vehicle access over speed humps.
Staff confirmed some devices can be prefabricated and removable while others are permanent; several designs include split features to allow larger emergency vehicles to pass. Council members asked staff to add clear cost breakdowns, payment collection mechanisms, and guardrails for renter participation (options discussed included limiting eligibility to long‑term renters or restricting signatures to property owners).
After discussion, Council voted unanimously to continue the item so staff can return with a final draft that incorporates council direction on the consent threshold, renter rules, cost estimates and removal procedures.
The council did not adopt a final policy tonight; staff will prepare a revised draft for a future meeting.
