City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss the Berryman Avenue Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program (NTMP) traffic calming plan and direct staff as deemed
appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s original NTMP was established by the City Council in 1994, and was
subsequently modified in 2004. The NTMP Procedures Manual is included with
this staff report. (Please see Attachment No. 1.)
Culver City’s NTMP was adopted by the City Council as a tool to manage and
control neighborhood traffic and reduce negative traffic impacts on residential
neighborhoods. The NTMP accomplishes what is commonly referred to as “traffic
calming.” Through the process of traffic calming, there are two broad purposes,
one quantitative and one qualitative.
On the quantitative level, the NTMP has been adopted with the purpose of
discouraging traffic impacts on local streets not designed for the high volumes and
excessive speeds that may occur as a result of drivers’ travel patterns, and local
and regional congestion. Additionally, traffic calming attempts to direct traffic to
nearby arterial streets.
Meeting Date: 4/21/2008 Item Number: A-2
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Direction to Staff regarding the Berryman Avenue
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Traffic Calming Plan.
Contact Person/Dept.: Gabe Garcia Phone Number: (310) 253-5633
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification:
Written notification by US mail, sent on Thursday, April 10, 2008, to all the households
and businesses of the neighborhood bounded by Washington Place and Washington
Boulevard on the north and south, and by McLaughlin Avenue and Sawtelle Boulevard
on the west and east. Master Notification List (04/17/08)
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson (04/09/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (04/16/08)
Fiscal Impact Review:
Jeff Muir (04/16/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (04/17/08) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
On the qualitative level, the NTMP was adopted to improve the quality of life in
residential neighborhoods, as well as to safeguard public safety for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and neighborhood residents.
Generally, traffic calming accomplishes its quantitative and qualitative ends;
however, some traffic is displaced to adjacent residential streets. While traffic
calming can produce measureable reductions in traffic volumes and speeds, at
times, the improvements on one local street may result in some traffic being
displaced to adjacent streets.
Under vigilant supervision and management, this collateral displacement may be
minor where it may be minimally perceptible to the adjacent streets. The
management of such spill-over traffic may be accomplished before the spill-over
occurs or once the effect is quantified. Each approach has its benefits and
drawbacks. Pre-empting the effect may prevent it but it may also unnecessarily
restrict the residents of the neighborhood by the use of a mitigation that is greater
than the potential negative effect. For example, installing a semi-diverter, when
the actual effect might have been addressed by a peak-hour turn restriction.
The categorical goal of traffic calming is to redirect excessive non-residential traffic
out of residential streets and onto the adjacent collector and arterial streets
designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic. Nevertheless, the success of
reaching this goal is limited to the motoring public perception that the travel time is
comparable or better than the time using the residential street short-cuts. For this
reason, optimization of traffic flow on the adjacent collector and arterial streets is
important.
There is a balance to be obtained between effectiveness of the traffic calming
measures intended for the non-residential motoring public and the restrictiveness
to the residents. For this reason, traffic calming measures may effectively reduce
traffic on local residential streets, but they can also be an inconvenience to
residents of the neighborhood as they traverse the traffic calming measures.
DISCUSSION:
GENERAL PLAN AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
On September 24
th
, 1996, City Council, by Resolution No. 96-R-102, approved and
adopted the update of four elements of the City’s General Plan, including the
Circulation Element. Page C-23 of the adopted Circulation Element (please see
Attachment No. 2), defines the following goal:
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
“Goal: Residential neighborhoods that offer residents the qualities of a
peaceful small-town environment.
“To protect the peaceful nature of the City’s neighborhoods, non-
residential parking intrusion and cut-through traffic must be reduced. This
could be addressed in part through, but not limited to, permit parking in the
residential zones, controlling traffic flow on arterials, and by supporting
public transit.”
The adopted Objective and Policies to accomplish the above Goal read as follows:
“Objective 8. Neighborhood Protection. Provide for the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods while preserving, enhancing, or reclaiming
the neighborhood’s quality of life.
“Policy (8.A) Further develop programs for identifying, reviewing,
and developing appropriate neighborhood protection plans,
including implementation of the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program.
“Policy (8.B) Reduce traffic intrusion into residential
neighborhoods through measures to reduce arterial congestion
(Objective 1, above).
“Policy (8.C) Install traffic control devices, such as stop signs,
and traffic diverters, to keep traffic from cutting through residential
areas.”
Along with other processes in the City, the adopted Goal, Objective, and Policies
are implemented through the NTMP program.
THE NTMP PROGRAM
The NTMP program, as modified in November 2004, has been followed, as closely
as possible. Complete adherence has not been achieved due to the longevity of
the dialogue between the City and residents of Berryman Avenue, in the block
bounded by Herbert Street to the north and Washington Boulevard to the south. A
comparison of the 2004 adopted NTMP process and the Berryman Avenue NTMP
process followed is detailed later on in this report.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
BERRYMAN AVENUE NTMP AND SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Since approximately the year 2000, residents of Berryman Avenue have
expressed concern regarding high non-resident traffic volume and
excessive speeds. Through the years, dialogue was not productive at
developing a plan to address the concerns expressed. The City disagreed
with the residents not only regarding the traffic mitigation measures
desired by the residents, but fundamentally, if any action should be taken
on the part of the City. The basis for the disagreement was the absence
of specific adopted thresholds for excessive volumes and speeds – in lieu
of such specific numbers, engineering judgment was used. Accordingly,
staff felt that the speeds were not excessive, even though traffic volumes
were over 1000 vehicles per day on the block.
NTMP THRESHOLDS MET
Data collected in October of 2004, indicate that traffic volume on the
subject block of Berryman Avenue was 1141, and Critical Speeds were at
or below 30 miles per hour. Critical Speed, or 85
th
Percentile Speed, is
the speed at or below which 85% of the drivers travel. Critical Speed is
utilized by the California Vehicle Code to determine the legal speed limit,
and subsequently, in November 2004, City Council adopted Critical Speed
as the threshold to be quantified for participation in the NTMP program.
Subsequently, in November of 2004, Council adopted a combined criteria
of Critical Speed of 7 miles above the legal speed limit, that is 32 miles per
hour and concurrently, a vehicular volume range of 1000 to 3000 vehicles
per day. That is, in order to participate in the NTMP, the Council-adopted
thresholds require that the number of vehicles traveling on a street be
more than 1000 but less than 3000 in a day. Additionally, the thresholds
for participation require that that the critical speed of travel be at least
seven miles per hour above the legal speed limit—that is, on a residential
street, the critical speed must be at least 32 miles per hour.
In a 3-day traffic count taken in September 2007, both NTMP criteria were
met. The highest 85
th
Percentile Speeds were registered as 32.7 miles
per hour, with a traffic volume between 1023 to 1078 vehicles per day.
(Please see Attachment No. 3, Volume and Speeds Fact Sheet.) The
NTMP requires that the City work with a Residents’ Committee in the
process of addressing the traffic impacts and mitigations.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NTMP PROCESS WITH THE
BERRYMAN AVENUE NTMP
The 2004 NTMP program was followed as closely as possible. Generally,
all the steps stipulated in the NTMP program were followed. The most
salient divergences from the process are the following: Item II.B requires
a “petition among residents of the study area to determine level of
agreement that problems exist.” Prior to 2004, a petition had already been
submitted. According to information received from the residents, more
than one petition was submitted through the years. The Public Works
Department did not require a petition at this step in the process.
Item III.A requires a “public meeting and residents’ committee formation.”
Due to the duration of time from first contact with the City, there had been
a functioning residents’ committee. This group continued to be accepted
as the de facto Residents’ Committee.
Item IV.A.5 requires the “development of alternative plans.” Due to the
difficulty in arriving at a proposal that could be supported by the Residents’
Committee and the City, and the length of time it took, alternative plans
were not developed with the Residents’ Committee. (Please see
Attachment No. 4, Comparison of Adopted NTMP Process vs. the
Berryman Avenue NTMP Process Followed.)
TRIAL ADVISORY SURVEY
Item VI.A requires that an Advisory Survey be conducted to determine the level of
support for an NTMP proposal from the neighborhood. The NTMP process
requires that the opinion of residents within a study area be considered regarding
the proposed traffic mitigation measures. Residents within the study area
identified in the enclosed map, Attachment No. 5, received an Advisory Survey.
All households and businesses within the “Notification Area” indicated on the map
received a letter advising them of the NTMP as well as inviting them to a public
meeting held on Wednesday March 19
th
, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, to
inform, discuss and receive input regarding the proposed NTMP plan. Only the
households identified on the map within the “Advisory Survey/Study Area” received
an Advisory Survey.
The NTMP requires that residents of the study area indicate their support by
meeting two criteria: 1) A minimum number of returned Advisory Surveys, and 2)
Of these returned Advisory Surveys, a minimum number of households be
supportive of the NTMP proposals. These numbers are discussed below. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RESULTS REQUIRED
According to our most recent Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office
information there are 222 households in the study area, identified on the
attached map, which are receiving Advisory Surveys. The NTMP program
requires that a minimum of 112 Advisory Surveys be returned. This
represents 50% of the households plus one more. Additionally, of these
returned Advisory Surveys, 60% must be in support of the proposed
NTMP proposal, that is, 68 Advisory Surveys must be in favor.
If the minimums required were not met, the Council-adopted regulations
require the NTMP process to conclude upon such determination.
Similarly, it is required that if the neighborhood supports the NTMP
proposals, as indicated in the numbers above, the proposed NTMP
program would be brought before the City Council for their consideration,
and to ask for authorization to enter into a trial installation.
TRIAL ADVISORY SURVEY AREA AND CRITERIA USED IN
DETERMINING AREA
The trial Advisory Survey/Study Area was defined by staff with the
Residents’ Committee. The selection of these households was based on
the criteria of empirical evidence of existing high traffic volume, or (in
compliance with the NTMP regulations), because the street, even though
there may be presently low traffic volumes, may have an impact if a trial is
authorized by Council. The Advisory Survey/Study Area encompasses all
households bounded between Herbert Street on the north and
Washington Boulevard on the south, and between McLaughlin Avenue
(Culver City side only) on the west and Sawtelle Boulevard on the east.
Additionally, between Herbert Street on the south and Washington Place
on the north, McLaughlin Boulevard and Berryman Avenue are also
included. Please refer to the map labeled Attachment No. 5.
MCLAUGHLIN AVENUE IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
McLaughlin Avenue is flanked with Culver City residences on the east side
of the street and Los Angeles residents on the west side of the street. The
Western District of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation was
advised of the NTMP process and proposal and was provided the data
obtained by Culver City. Staff did not contact the residents in the City of
Los Angeles. Although the residents on the Culver City side of the street City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
were contacted, they expressed a great degree of frustration in that the
City could not take any action to ameliorate their traffic concerns.
Two reasons were offered Culver City residents on the street. First,
towards the north, McLaughlin Avenue from a point approximately north of
the alley that is located north of Washington Boulevard, is completely in
the City of Los Angeles, therefore, Culver City has no jurisdiction on
McLaughlin Avenue. Secondly, the NTMP adopted thresholds set a range
of vehicular traffic of 1000 to 3000. Both blocks of McLaughlin Avenue
exceed this range. The north block has between 3918 to 4235 vehicles in
one day, and the south block has between 4575 to 5027 vehicles in one
day. The Critical Speed on the north block is at 31 miles per hour and on
the south block it is at 32.8 miles per hour.
NTMP PROPOSAL
The Berryman Avenue NTMP Proposal has three components. 1) The closure of
Berryman Avenue, on the residential side of the alley north of Washington
Boulevard; 2) The prohibition of left turns from southbound McLaughlin Avenue
onto eastbound Herbert Street; and 3) The installation of a new traffic signal at the
intersection of McLaughlin Avenue and Washington Boulevard.
1) THE CLOSURE OF BERRYMAN AVENUE, ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE
OF THE ALLEY NORTH OF WASHINGTON BOULEVARD.
The City and the
Residents
Committee have
developed a
proposed plan to
close Berryman
Avenue to through
traffic at the alley
north of
Washington
Boulevard, on the
residential side of
the street. This
closure would be
for a 6-month trial, upon City Council approval. The closure would be
effected by barricades, small trees in over-sized concrete pots, or other
effective method. Additionally, if recommended by the Police Department
or the Fire Department, a removable bollard (a metal post) would be City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
strategically placed so that when removed by emergency services
personnel, their vehicles can still enter or exit the street. The closure
would be complemented by proper “not a through street” signs
strategically placed where appropriate. Additionally, reflective signs as
well as temporary informational signs mounted on barricades and
strategically placed, would be used to advise the motoring public of the
change in access.
All residents of the 4100-4200 block of Berryman Avenue would be able to
exit their block only to the north for the duration of the 6-month trial.
Residents of Berryman Avenue, those of other streets in the
neighborhood, and cut-through commuting traffic would not be able to
travel south past the closure.
2) THE PROHIBITION OF LEFT TURNS FROM SOUTHBOUND
MCLAUGHLIN AVENUE ONTO EASTBOUND HERBERT STREET
On southbound McLaughlin Avenue,
at Herbert Street, prohibit left-turns
onto eastbound Herbert Street,
weekdays, between 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
by the use of signs. This turn
prohibition would be for a 6-month
trial, upon City Council approval.
Preventing this movement will
decrease cut-through traffic traveling
from the north and exiting Berryman
Avenue at Washington Boulevard.
Such traffic, primarily, continues south
to Berryman Avenue in the City of Los
Angeles and then is distributed to
Culver Boulevard and Braddock Drive
to access the 405 freeway ramp, and
to the west to Playa Vista and the Marina. It is during the weekday
afternoon peak period that this movement has the most impact on
Berryman Avenue. The left turn prohibition during the weekday afternoon
peak period would minimize this possibility.
Throughout the proposed 6-month trial period, staff and the Residents
Committee will keep a vigilant eye on traffic and assess if there is any
traffic spill over into other streets and alleys in the neighborhood. If this
occurs, in consultation with residents of the particular street, staff requests City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
that the City Council authorize staff to take action by use of traffic
mitigation measures that will deal with the quantified impact. Similarly, if
any spill over traffic impacts the alleys, in consultation with the adjacent
businesses and residents, staff requests Council authorize staff to take
necessary action, in consultation with residents and businesses, to
address the situation. Additionally, an “After Study” will be conducted to
determine the success of these proposed traffic measures.
“AFTER” STUDY
Between the third and fifth months of the trial installation, traffic volumes and
speeds would be collected for all streets indicated in the attached map. The
findings of this study would be compared to the conditions on each of these streets
prior to the installation of the trial, in order to determine what, if any, negative
impacts have been quantified. The findings will be used to determine if other
streets need traffic mitigation measures as a result of the trial, and subsequently to
the trial period, to make a recommendation to Council regarding the success or
failure of the trial installation.
The Engineering Division, in its 2008-2009 Fiscal Year’s CIP budget is requesting
to fund the installation of a traffic signal at this location. The funding of the traffic
signal is a decision to be made by the City Council.
3) The installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of McLaughlin
Avenue and Washington Boulevard
A traffic engineering
firm was hired to
perform Traffic Signal
Warrant Studies to
determine if the
intersection of
McLaughlin
Avenue/Washington
Boulevard met the
traffic volume criteria to
have a traffic signal
installed. The traffic engineering firm’s finding show that the intersection
met three traffic signal warrants. The installation of traffic signals at
intersections is based on signal warrants being met, and not on other
factors, such as petition by the public, or the public’s opinion.
Nevertheless, in order to gauge the neighborhood’s the support for such City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
installation, but not as a factor to determine its installation, the question of
this signal installation was included in the Advisory Survey.
In the afternoon, traffic entering McLaughlin Avenue from the north would
continue southbound past Herbert Street, since it could not make a left
turn onto Herbert Street because of the left-turn prohibition, and if a traffic
signal were in place at this intersection, such traffic would be given the
right-of-way by the signal to merge onto Washington Boulevard. If the
majority of southbound traffic were to continue to be cut-through traffic and
head to destinations in the City of Los Angeles, such traffic, after merging
onto Washington Boulevard, would make a right turn onto Berryman
Avenue, south of Washington Boulevard and continue to its destination.
Those residents of McLaughlin Avenue who desire to travel eastbound on
Washington Boulevard, and presently use other alternatives due to the
curvature of the road and the delay in order to wait for an adequate gap in
traffic, would be able to turn under the protection of a green signal
indication.
PHILOSOPHY: 1) MINIMALIST TRAFFIC CALMING TO ADDRESS
QUANTIFIED IMPACTS; AND 2) PRESENCE, AWARENESS, AND
DIALOGUE TO ADDRESS FUTURE POSSIBLE IMPACTS
Staff’s philosophy in proposing this NTMP program, is different than other
recent proposals. The philosophy has formed based on observations and
lessons learned from those proposals.
EFFECTIVENESS VS RESTRICTIVENESS
It has been staff’s observations that the balance between the
effectiveness of traffic calming features and the consequent
restrictiveness on local residents is a sensitive one. Previous
attempts to design an NTMP program that addresses every
possible impact and pre-empts them lead to those residents who do
not sense the need for traffic calming being opposed to the
measures due to their personal sense of inconvenience and
restrictiveness. This predisposes a significant segment of the
neighborhoods against supporting the trial of traffic calming
measures.
This premature implementation of possibly-needed future measures
is seen as an unnecessary inconvenience by residents of streets City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
where the perception of negative traffic impacts have not been
experienced.
On the other hand, a strong opposition to such an approach to
traffic calming is the residents’ fear that the City will “set it and
forget us.”
1) MINIMALIST TRAFFIC CALMING TO ADDRESS
QUANTIFIED IMPACTS
Staff proposes to initially trial only as much traffic calming
as is necessary to address the existing quantified traffic
impacts, thereby not imposing restrictions at a broad
neighborhood level; and
2) PRESENCE, AWARENES, AND DIALOGUE TO
ADDRESS SUBSEQUENT POSSIBLE IMPACTS
Concurrently, staff proposes to work closely with the
neighborhood, maintaining a readily available presence to
frequently observe and evaluate real-time impacts.
Through this presence in the neighborhood and open
dialogue with the residents, staff proposes to maintain
constant awareness of the neighborhood’s traffic
dynamics. Through this process, additional traffic calming,
if necessary, may be identified and implemented.
In this approach, the City’s credibility with the residents is
critical. Because of this, staff respectfully asks Council to
authorize staff to deal with quantifiable impacts if the
impacts are experienced. An advantage of this approach
is that the traffic mitigation selected between the
neighborhood and staff can be just adequate, not more and
not less, than the need.
Staff will keep the City Council informed throughout the process.
PROPOSED BY OTHER RESIDENTS BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED
It is noteworthy to mention that there have been other ideas presented by
some members of the neighborhood. One such idea is to install
delineators down the middle of Herbert Street, from McLaughlin Avenue to
Sawtelle Boulevard, and also at the intersection of Herbert Street and City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
McLaughlin Avenue as well as at Herbert Street and Sawtelle Boulevard.
See the graphic below.
This concept bisects the community into a north and a south side and
prevents vehicular movements between the two halves. Concurrently, if
the City of Los Angeles does not permit the installation of delineators
within their right-of-way, the predominant heavy traffic movement from
southbound McLaughlin Avenue onto eastbound Herbert Street and
eventually onto the traffic signal at Berryman Avenue and Washington
Boulevard would still be possible. The cost to the community is broad and
the benefits may be minor.
Among other ideas, some residents have expressed that they rather see
any action taken after the 405 widening construction has concluded and
some of the traffic may then return to the nearby arterials. Additionally,
others have expressed that the new proposed traffic signal should be
installed prior to any traffic calming activities. The opinion is that the
signal at McLaughlin Avenue/Washington Boulevard may draw enough
drivers to it to decrease the impact on Berryman Avenue.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
STAFF’S PROPOSAL
Staff agrees, with the Residents’ Committee and many residents of the
neighborhood, that the new proposed traffic signal is a critical component of the
traffic calming solution. That if the signal is installed subsequent to the
commencement of the trial, the possible impacts suffered by the neighborhood
streets may convince the residents to not support a permanent installation, even if
the trial is subsequently successful.
The Residents’ Committee has expressed strong opinions that the trial commence
as soon as possible, and that the installation of the proposed new traffic signal be
pursued rapidly. To this end, staff has requested funding for the proposed new
traffic signal for fiscal year 2008-2009 through the CIP budget process. If Council
approves the signal and funds its installation, staff is prepared to expedite this
capital improvement project.
The Public Works Department recommendation is contrary to that of the Residents’
Committee. It is the position of the Department that the trial cannot commence
until after the traffic signal has been installed due to concerns for causing
premature exposure to drivers at the intersection of McLaughlin Avenue/
Washington Boulevard without the benefit of traffic control. This may potentially
cause unnecessary risk and liability.
Because staff, the Resident’s Committee and some members of the neighborhood
have recognized the critical aspect of the new proposed traffic signal, its
installation relative to the trial is of paramount importance.
In considering opinions from the neighborhood, another option is to install the
signal, wait for a couple of months after its installation, and then do a traffic count
on Berryman Avenue to determine if the problem was solved by just the signal
installation. If not, then, the closure of Berryman Avenue can be pursued.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
Based on the input from staff and the public, here are a few options for
consideration:
1. A possible timeline for the trial, considering the traffic signal as
the critical path element, would be that the signal is installed, if
approved and funded by the City Council in FY 2008-2009,
between March and June of 2009. The trial as defined by staff
with the Residents’ Committee would commence upon installation
of the signal and last for a period of six months; or City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
2. The proposed signal installation would be expedited, and
concurrently, the closure of Berryman Avenue would be effected.
The trial period could be extended to six months after the signal
installation was completed. This is the scenario favored by the
Residents’ Committee; or
3. Lacking funding of the proposed traffic signal in FY 2008-2009, an
interim traffic calming measure(s) could be pursued on Berryman
Avenue, pending funding and installation of the proposed traffic
signal and full implementation of the proposed NTMP plan. The
interim measure, among other choices, could be a half-closure of
Berryman Avenue at the south leg with Herbert Street, to prevent
the southbound heavier traffic movement. Concurrently, other
traffic calming measures may be needed on adjacent streets; or
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION
4. The proposed traffic signal could be installed, as per item 1
above, and a period of a couple of months for “traffic pattern
settlement” would follow the installation. After this, reassessment
of the previously quantified problems would be done. If the
problems previously quantified still persist on Berryman Avenue,
then the closure of Berryman Avenue and the left turn restriction
would follow;
AFTER-STUDY
In any scenario, an after study would be performed to assess spill-over
impacts and success of the trial measures.
PERMANENT INSTALLATION ADVISORY SURVEY
If Council authorizes a trial, a second Advisory Survey will be done to
assess support for the permanent installation of the traffic calming
measures. This second Advisory Survey has a threshold the participation
of at lease 50% of all the households in the study area yet to be defined,
plus 1 additional household; concurrently, the support of 75% of the
households that participate in the Advisory Survey.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
MEETINGS AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
In preparation for Council consideration of this item, all residents and
businesses of the neighborhood, as identified in the “Notification Area” of
the attached map, were notified in writing two times. First, for a public
meeting held by staff on Wednesday, March 26
th
, and secondly, for the
subject City Council meeting.
COMMENTS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT
Both the Fire and Police Departments in the past have advised staff that
any traffic calming measures implemented will have some effect on the
delivery of emergency services to the neighborhood. The Fire Department
has reiterated that this is their only comment. However, the Police
Department is reconsidering their previous position and did not provide
staff a specific opinion prior to the deadline for this staff report. Staff will
advise of their position at the meeting on April 21
st
.
LOS ANGELES DOT POSITION
The Western District of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, as
of the writing of this report, did not offer an opinion or a position regarding
this subject.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Funding for the proposed new traffic signal at Washington Boulevard and
McLaughlin Ave is being requested by Public Works and recommended by the City
Manager for approval in the upcoming 2008-2009 fiscal budget using gas tax funds
(41800909). The cost of the signal is estimated to be approximately $300,000.
Additionally, adequate funding for the temporary trial measures for the Berryman
NTMP is available in the current year NTMP Program budget, P-599 (42000599).
ATTACHMENTS:
1) NTMP Procedures Manual;
2) Circulation Element, Page C-23.
3) Volume and Speeds Fact Sheet City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
4) Comparison of Adopted NTMP Process vs. the Berryman Avenue NTMP
Process Followed
5) Map of the Berryman Avenue NTMP neighborhood and proposals;
6) Descriptions of Proposed Traffic Mitigations, 6-month Trial;
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1) Discuss the Berryman Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
traffic calming plan and direct staff as deemed appropriate.