Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces ordinance to reduce speed limits on 18 San Rafael roadway segments
Summary
Following an AB 43 review and a Phase 2 evaluation, the council introduced an ordinance (4-0) to reduce posted speed limits by 5 mph on 18 segments outside downtown; staff cited crash history and vulnerable roadway users as the rationale.
San Rafael ' The City Council on July 20 introduced an ordinance to lower speed limits on 18 roadway segments outside downtown, a measure based on AB 43 criteria that staff said will reduce the risk of severe collisions.
Public Works traffic staff and consultant Parametrix presented the Phase 2 results, explaining that AB 43 allows jurisdictions to reduce speed limits by an additional 5 mph where an engineering and traffic survey (ETS) and other criteria show it is appropriate and where vulnerable roadway users are proximate to the roadway. Staff said downtown reductions (Phase 1) already created a contiguous 20 mph zone; Phase 2 identifies corridors such as Miracle Mile, parts of Lincoln Avenue and Poinsettia Road for a 5-mph reduction from existing posted limits.
Why it matters: Staff emphasized research showing injury severity rises dramatically at higher speeds (example cited: fatality risk to pedestrians grows substantially between 20 and 40 mph). The presentation linked the recommended reductions to the city's Vision Zero/Local Road Safety Plan priorities and the high-collision network concentrated near downtown.
Enforcement and evaluation: Councilmembers asked how the city will enforce the new limits, and Police Chief Spiller described the traffic team and patrol responsibilities for traffic enforcement; staff said the city will use an education-and-warning period after signs are installed and then enforce. Staff said evaluations will measure before-and-after crash data and speed surveys, and the city applied for a Safe Streets for All grant to support additional analysis.
Public comment was largely supportive, with neighborhood advocates praising proposed reductions and asking for radar signs and enforcement. Some residents asked why busy arterials such as Second and Third streets did not qualify; staff explained measured travel speeds on those arterials exceeded thresholds that would allow a downward adjustment under the ETS methodology.
Formal action: Councilmember Hill moved to introduce the ordinance, waive further reading and refer it by title; the council voted 4-0 to introduce the ordinance and proceed with implementation steps (signing, 30-day warning period, and evaluation).
Next steps: Staff will publish the ordinance language, install signage and begin the 30-day warning period; enforcement and data collection will follow to evaluate the policy's effectiveness on speed and crashes.
