City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council consider the options presented and staff recommendations for
the composition and makeup of the traffic committee and give further direction to
staff.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has received requests that the City’s Traffic Committee be
replaced by a Traffic Commission, or at least be expanded to include residents on
the Committee. In November 2004, the City completed an update to the
Residential Traffic Programs consisting of the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program (NTMP) and the Preferential Parking Program (PPP). In addition, staff
analyzed the role and organization of the City’s existing Traffic Committee and
made recommendations as to whether a Traffic Commission should be formed
instead. Staff conducted a survey of other jurisdictions to determine if they used
the staff committee or appointed commission approach. The findings of the survey
and staff’s recommendation that the existing staff Traffic Committee approach be
retained were presented to the Council at the November 22, 2004 meeting. At the
conclusion of the November 22, 2004 discussion, the Council approved the update
to the Residential Traffic Program and directed staff to continue the review of the
issue and bring back to Council a list of different options.
Based on Council’s direction, staff conducted a comprehensive survey of California
Cities to develop a list of options for the Council’s consideration. Over thirty cities
responded to the survey request. Staff prepared a matrix of the relevant
Meeting Date: 10/10/05 Item Number: A-6
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Traffic Committee’s Organization and Role
Contact Person/Dept.: J. Rivera
PW/Admin.
Phone Number: 310-253-6423
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ X ] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [ X ] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Notice was published in the Culver City News on 10-06-05. On
09-29-05, 55 notices of tonight’s discussion were mailed to the individuals who attended
previous meetings regarding the Residential Traffic Program Update between August
and November 2004. Master Notification List on 10-05-05.
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson 9/29/05
CAO Approval:
Scott Bixby for Jerry Fulwood 10/4/05
City Controller Approval:
Mary Noller for Marlee Chang 10/4/05City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
responses, and presented the survey results and staff’s recommendations to the
Council on May 5, 2005.
The survey response generally described traffic related advisory bodies that were
grouped in the following categories:
Traffic Committee:
1. Staff Only
2. Staff and Residents and/or Business Representatives (with or without
professional traffic management expertise)
Traffic Commission:
1. Residents Only
2. Residents and Business Representatives (with or without professional
traffic management expertise)
At the conclusion of the May 5, 2005 discussion, the Council directed staff to
continue the review and bring back to Council a list of options for participation by
residents on a commission or committee.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has considered the issue and has identified the following options for
participation by residents on a commission or committee:
Traffic Committee consisting of Staff and Residents and/or Business
Representatives (with or without professional traffic management expertise)
Traffic Commission:
1. Residents Only
2. Residents and Business Representatives (with or without professional
traffic management expertise)
Typically other agencies Committees are organized similarly to Culver City’s
current Traffic Committee. They consist of approximately five to seven members.
The members are usually staff from departments with responsibility for or related to
the traffic or transportation system. In some cases, the committees include a
Councilmember, resident and/or business members. When non-staff members are
included, they typically are not required to have any professional traffic
management experience. A few cities do require related experience, training or
knowledge in traffic engineering. Committees are advisory to the City Council, City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Traffic Engineer, Police Chief and/or other related departments. Committees
generally hold their meetings once a month during regular business hours.
Traffic Commissions are generally organized much the same as Culver City’s other
commissions. They consist of approximately five to ten members. Commissions
are almost all comprised of appointed residents. In a few cities, planning
commissioners, local school districts, businesses and/or Chamber of Commerce
representatives are also included. Typically, the commissions are primarily
advisory bodies to their respective City Councils. Some of the commissions are
responsible for other issue areas, such as transportation, planning, environmental,
capital improvement projects and parking. These commissions generally meet in
the evening, after 5:30PM.
The types of traffic related or transportation issues delegated to these advisory
bodies are generally the same whether they are a committee or commission.
Based on the survey, the roles of the surveyed advisory bodies typically are
greater than those of Culver City’s Traffic Committee. Typically, these advisory
bodies are involved in reviewing issues ranging from traffic, transportation, parking,
rail, pedestrian, bicycle, and/or other issues directed by their Councils. They deal
with traffic or transportation issues such as street vacations, NTMP processes,
long range planning, environmental reviews, capital improvements, transportation
policies and/or traffic flow, safety and management. In Culver City these issues
are reviewed by the City Council, Planning Commission and/or the Public Works
Director/City Engineer and not the Traffic Committee.
Options
Staff has analyzed and considered these types of advisory bodies as discussed
above and we present the following options for your consideration.
1. Traffic Committee Option:
Staff and Residents and/or Business Representatives (with or without
professional traffic management expertise): This option would remove the two
Public Works Department members (Public Works Director and City Engineer
or designated representative) and replace them with residents and/or business
representatives. The Public Works participation would continue as the
technical staff to the Traffic Committee. The Chair of the Committee could be
permanently assigned to a staff member (i.e., Planning representative) or
rotated. The current advisory role of the committee would be maintained.
Whether the Council were to add resident and/or business members to the
Committee, this option would increase community participation by at least the
appointees being involved in the Committee processes, while continuing the City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
utilization of City departments familiar with the day-to-day issues related to
traffic management as the core of the committee. This option would result in
some minimal additional costs to implement training and for copying and
distributing agenda materials to non-staff appointees. The need for additional
training cost could be eliminated or reduced if the City requires professional
traffic management expertise as a condition of appointment. (See the below
discussion in ‘Staff Recommendation’).
2. Traffic Commission Options:
a. Residents Only (with or without professional traffic management expertise):
This option would replace the existing Traffic Committee with a resident
Commission, which would increase community participation by at least the
appointees being involved. However this would reduce the role of City
departments familiar with the day-to-day issues related to traffic
management in the formulation of professional recommendations for the
Council. Staff’s recommendations could be replaced by the Commission’s
recommendations. This option would result in additional costs to implement
related to organization (developing by-laws), training, copying and
distributing agenda materials to non-staff appointees, and administrative
costs due to evening meetings. Additional training cost could be reduced if
the City requires professional traffic management expertise as a condition of
appointment.
b. Residents and Business Representatives (with or without professional traffic
management expertise): This option would provide an opportunity for the
local business community to actively participate in the discussion process.
The potential Commission related benefit/cost issues addressed above
would still apply.
In addition to the above discussion, the Council should consider the role they want
the Committee or Commission to have in the review of traffic issues. Most of the
Commissions in the survey have more defined duties then the existing Traffic
Committee. For instance, in the case of development related traffic, transportation
and environmental impacts of projects in Culver City and/or long range planning,
the Planning Commission is generally charged with review, and decision-making
authority or making recommendations to the City Council. The formulation of City
policy in response to significant project and/or environmental reviews that are
proposed in other jurisdictions is under the authority of the City Council. The
Council would need to decide what role a Traffic Commission would have in these
types of reviews. In both the aforementioned cases, the existence of another
reviewing entity would be an additional step in the process, which is a potential City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
increased cost to the City and the projects and would likely result in an increase in
time to process applications
It is also important to note that if an additional review step is involved in formulating
responses to environmental reviews of outside jurisdictions, the additional step
could result in the need to minimize or possibly eliminate the Council’s practice of
holding two discussions; one to take public comments and one to adopt the
Council’s policies/responses. This would be due primarily to the typical short term
public comment periods established by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and by other jurisdictions with approval authority.
Staff Recommendation
If it is the intent of the Council to increase participation of residents by appointing
them to a committee or commission, Staff recommends:
1. Traffic Committee Option:
Staff and Residents and/or Business Representatives (with or without
professional traffic management expertise): Remove the two Public Works
Department members (Public Works Director and City Engineer of designated
representative) and replace them with residents and/or business
representatives and maintain the current advisory role of the committee. Public
Works/Traffic Engineering staff would continue to participate as support staff to
the revamped committee.
In order to implement this change CCMC Section 7.01.135 (A) would need to be
revised to incorporate the change.
If the Council wishes to expand the role of residents and/or businesses in the traffic
review process, whether it uses the committee or commission approach, staff
recommends that Council direct staff to draft an amendment to CCMC Section
7.01.135 to allow for the Council to appoint a resident(s) and/or business
representative(s) to sit as voting member(s) of the Traffic Committee or a Traffic
Commission, provided the appointee(s) meet all standard minimum qualifications
for appointment to a City Commission, except that any business representative not
be subject to any residency requirements, and that it is preferable that appointees
have training, experience and attainments qualified to analyze and interpret traffic,
transportation and parking information including, but not limited to, transportation
planning, transportation program management, transportation and advisory agency
experience, civil engineering, transportation, traffic engineering or urban planning.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Traffic Committee Role
The Traffic Committee’s current role is to suggest the most practicable means for
coordinating the activities of the City with respect to the administration and
enforcement of traffic regulations; to stimulate and assist in the preparation and
publication of traffic reports; to receive complaints regarding traffic matters; and to
recommend to the City Council, to the Chief of Police, to the City Engineer, and to
other City officials ways and means for improving traffic conditions and the
administration and enforcement of traffic regulations. In the recent past, the staff
believes the Traffic Committee has not been utilized to the fullest extent of its
assigned role. Staff recommends that a revamped traffic committee should continue
in its defined role and utilized to the fullest extent of that role.
Traffic Committee Meeting Time
At the May 5
th
, meeting the Council directed that the Traffic Committee should
conduct its upcoming meetings in the evening at 7:00 PM, as done by other City
commissions, in order to provide increased opportunity for the public to participate.
The Council also directed staff to report back on the number of public attendees at
the meetings. Since May, the Traffic Committee has met four times, with three of
the meeting being held at 7:00 PM (July 20, August 31, and September 21). At the
July and September meetings there were seven to ten public attendees, all of which
were there for a specific item on the agenda.
At the August meeting, there were also about seven attendees. Of the attendees,
one was there to submit a request to the Committee on an issue not on the Agenda.
For the three night time meetings held, there was no appreciable increase in public
participation. Although the nighttime meetings result in additional overtime costs for
staff support, if the City Council decides to place residents or business members on
the committee, night time meetings will most likely be required to accommodate their
availability.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Should the City Council decide to reorganize the Traffic Committee or create a
Traffic Commission, there will be increases in General Fund costs due to standard
City stipends for non-staff members (Traffic Commission only), copying and
distributing/delivering meeting packets and additional staff support for the meetings.
These costs will be dependent on the tasks assigned to any reorganized Committee
or newly created Commission.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
There are also potential training costs associated with educating non-professionals
for appointment. These potential costs would be reduced or eliminated if appointees
were required to have professional traffic management experience as a condition of
appointment to a Traffic Committee or Commission
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CCMC Section 7.01.135
MOTIONS:
That the City Council:
1. Direct staff to draft an amendment to CCMC Section 7.01.135 (A.) to remove the
two Public Works Department members (Public Works Director and City
Engineer or designees) and allow for City Council appointment of two residents
or business representatives or combination of both to sit as voting members of
the exiting Traffic Committee, subject to all standard minimum qualifications for
appointment to a City Commission, except that any business representative not
be subject to any residency requirements, and, that it is preferred, but not
required, that such appointees have training, experience and attainments
qualified to analyze and interpret traffic, transportation and parking information
including transportation planning, transportation program management,
transportation and advisory agency experience, civil engineering, transportation,
traffic engineering or urban planning, and to maintain and utilize to the full extent
the existing role of the Traffic Committee as defined in CCMC Section 7.01.135
(B.);
OR
2. Provide further direction to staff regarding the organization and/or role of the
Traffic Committee;
OR
3. Provide further direction to staff regarding establishment of a Traffic
Commission and its organization and role;
OR
4. Decline to take action at this time.
MEETING DATE 10/10/05
AGENDA ITEM Discussion of Traffic Committee's
Organization and Role
ATTACHMENTS
Pages|109| Culver City Municipal Code Section 7 01 135 1ATTACHMENT No 1
Culver City Municipal Code
TITLE 7 TRAFFIC CODE
CHAPTER 7 01 GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 701 GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 7 01 135 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE, DUTIES
A There is hereby established an advisory traffic committee to serve without
compensation, consisting of the Chief of Police, City Engineer, City Planner, Fire Chief
and the Public Works Director or each of their designees ('65 Code, § 21-2 8)
B It shall be the duty of the Traffic Committee to suggest the most practicable
means for coordinating the activities of all officers and agencies of this City having
authonty with respect to the administration and enforcement of traffic regulations, to
stimulate and assist in the preparation and publication of traffic reports, to receive
complaints regarding traffic matters, and to recommend to the City Council, to the Chief
of Police, to the City Engineer, and to other City officials ways and means for improving
traffic conditions and the administration and enforcement of traffic regulations ('65
Code, § 21-2 9)
(Ord No 83-027 § 1)
I