San Rafael panel reviews draft traffic‑calming policy as residents press for renter representation

City staff presented a draft traffic‑calming policy that would open a new, funded pathway for neighborhood traffic safety projects but set a formal petition and survey process that drew strong public scrutiny.

Under the draft, traffic calming would apply to neighborhood residential streets. The policy proposes initial fixes (signing, striping, channelizers) that staff can install directly; larger physical measures would require a petition signed by a simple majority (50% plus one) of affected properties, a seven‑day speed and volume survey, and review by an internal Traffic Advisory Committee. Planning materials in the draft also set an initial annual traffic calming budget of $150,000 and a goal of implementing approved measures within 12 months when funding allows.

The traffic engineer presenting the draft described multilayered qualifying thresholds that rely on 85th‑percentile speed exceedances (for example, 7 mph over posted speed during a specified number of hours) and said the thresholds are intended to balance being neither so strict that no streets qualify nor so lax that every street would qualify. The presenter said staff would use objective tube‑count data (24‑hour counts for seven days) when scheduling vendor surveys and that staff already address many safety requests with signs and striping without invoking the full petition process.

Residents who spoke during the extended public comment period welcomed an organized program but objected to the proposal in several respects. Multiple commenters said the 50%+1 petition rule and current owner‑vs‑tenant voting approach would systematically disadvantage renters and some neighborhoods with lower organizational capacity. One commenter said the draft’s vote counting could allow an absentee property owner to override on‑site residents’ preferences; others urged staff to adopt a tiered approach that distinguishes quick staff fixes from measures that require broader community sign‑up.

"When tenants and property owners vote differently for the same unit, only the property owner vote is counted," a renter told the committee, describing the outcome as effectively disenfranchising residents who live and experience the street daily. The presenter acknowledged the legal and implementation complexities and said the city attorney would be consulted on voting eligibility and whether changes are permissible under state and municipal rules.

Committee members suggested clarifying eligible street definitions, publishing a tiered list of interventions that staff can do without a petition and creating alternative prioritization approaches (for example, periodic ranking of candidate streets) to avoid favoring well‑organized neighborhoods. Staff said the draft is scheduled to go to City Council for consideration in June and that BPAC feedback and written comments would be folded into the next draft.

The committee voted to receive the staff report and forward feedback to the city for the next round of review. The draft remains subject to legal review and possible edits on petition structure and vote eligibility before Council action.