HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/2010 06A Red Light Cameras - Reports from Public Safety Committee • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. (A A
For Meeting Of May 4, 2010
ITEM TITLE: Updated Reports from the Public Safety Committee regarding Red Light
Cameras
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy Police Chief Kelly Rosenow
CONTACT PERSON /TELEPHONE: Deputy Chief Kelly Rosenow - 575 -6210
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
At the April 21, 2010 meeting of the Council Public Safety Committee, staff provided updated
reports to the committee members regarding various staffing and funding issues related to
Red Light Traffic Safety Camera programs. The following reports are being forwarded to the
full council from the Public Safety Committee for additional discussion and public input.
Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify) Report
Contract Mail to (name and address):
Phone:
Funding Source
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTALC , City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss reports.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Public Safety Committee recommends the
Council have additional discussions and invite public comment regarding the issues
surrounding Red Light Camera enforcement prior to proceeding any further with research or
system demonstrations.
COUNCIL ACTION:
r
CITY OF YAKIMA
• LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
200 South Third Street, Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 (Phone) 509 - 575 -6033 (Fax) 509 - 575 -6160
MEMORANDUM
April 27, 2010
TO: Micah Cawley, Honorable Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Cynthia I. Martinez, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Impact of Red Light Cameras on the Prosecution Division
The Prosecution Division does handle contested infraction matters in
Municipal Court. Prosecutors review the cases and determine who should be
called to testify and the Legal Assistants provide discovery and prepare
i subpoenas. Prosecutors also appear in court on all contested infractions in
which an attorney has entered a notice of appearance. A small percentage of
the infractions issued are contested, but the amount of cases we do handle
represents about 4 hours of prosecutor time, and 1.5 hours of Legal Assistant'
time per week.
In 2009, the Prosecution Division handled 288 contested infraction
matters or 3% of the total infraction number. If we apply that same percentage
to the anticipated infraction number provided by the court, the Prosecution
Division could be handling an additional 642 contested infraction matters. If
- realized, this number represents a tripling of the current contested infraction
caseload.
Typically, people contest infractions that result in an accident or when
they are looking at increased insurance rates. Since the red Tight camera
infractions are not reported to DOL and they are not as involved as an accident,
processing these matters will probably take less time. I would estimate a
doubling of the current time taken to process contested infractions, or 8 hours of
prosecutor time and 3 hours of Legal Assistant time per week. This increase in
workload, at a time when we are still trying to reduce the caseload due to staff
reduction, represents a significant increase for the Division.
CC. Dick Zais, City Manager
Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
City of Yakima
Police Department 200 S. 3 Street Yakima,
Samuel Granato, Chief of Police Washington 98901 "4--`= „_ 4
Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007 '"i4Fr
MEMORANDUM
April 15, 2010
TO: Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM: Kelly M. Rosenow, Deputy Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Red Light Camera Update
Prior to moving this forward to the full council for review and direction we felt it was
appropriate to update the Public Safety Committee in regards to an estimated cost
to the City of Yakima for this program.
At the Public Safety Committee meeting of March 24, 2010, Judge Olwell expressed
concerns as to the impact the Red Light Camera /School Zone Cameras would have
on Municipal Court.
• In a memo dated March 30, 2010, (attached) Judge Olwell believes due to the
research conducted by Captain Copeland there would be a significant increase of
infraction filings.
Judge Olwell believes for every three red light cameras installed the court would
need to hire one clerk at $53,000 (including salary/benefits) and hire one cashier at
$43,000 (includes salary/benefits). Judge Olwell believes there will also be
increases in the court's interpreter costs of $9,000. There is also a space issue and
the cashier's window would need to be re- opened eight hours a day.
Based on Judge Olwell's analysis of the program and cost requirements, it appears
Municipal Court would require an additional $105,000 or more, if the city installs
three cameras.
The court may consider the option of hiring two to three part time employees until
the full impact of the program is realized.
1
Please note the City of Yakima does not have a contract with ATS so the following
information obtained from American Traffic Solution (ATS) are estimates only and
based on the company's experience. These estimates may change depending upon
contract terms, traffic light violations, and /or determination of the process to be
used for disposition of contested violations.
In a memo date April 14, 2010, (attached) Captain Copeland contacted the
representative of the American Traffic Solution (ATS), Bill Kroski, regarding possible
revenue to the city.
Captain Copeland notes in his memorandum
" "As far as a revenue forecast, Bill cautioned me (and I will caution you) that what
follow is purely an estimate, no guarantees attached whatsoever. However, he
estimates based on his time in Yakima that there are 7 -8 "sites" (a "site" is an
intersection or school zone —each "site" normally has two cameras — though some
may only have one) that may be suited for red light or school zone camera
enforcement. For each site, ATS's flat contract rate is $4750.00 per month. An
industry norm is that each site will produce about 5 paid tickets per busy traffic day
(26 days per month is normally used as the number of "busy traffic days "). The site
may produce other tickets that do not end up producing revenue for one reason or
another, but about 5 paid tickets per busy traffic day is the norm. So, a site that
produces 5 paid tickets of $124.00 each 26 days per month will create revenue of
$16,120.00 per month. Once the $4750.00 is subtracted, that leaves a balance of
$11,370.00 per site. Seven such sites would create monthly revenue of $79,590.00.
Captain Copeland further states
"Bill concurs that there certainly is an impact on the court system for those who
wish to contest the tickets. His firm has a variety of processes that he feels ease
the burden to entities —(such as fine collection methods, etc). He can likely
elaborate on these if a point is reached where ATS and /or other firms present
further information to the Council ".
As noted in Captain Copeland's report it is probable there will be an impact to the
police department in the area of an officer reviewing the violation (s) each day. This
may be offset by assigning this duty to officers on Tight duty and /or making it a
requirement of a traffic officer.
Based on the information obtained from Mr. Kroske if the city elects to move
forward with this project we should use the recommended industry norm of seven
sites producing approximately $995,080 /year. Again, this is an industry standard
and should only be used at this point in time for discussion purposes in assisting the
council in their decision making process.
Based on Judge Oiwell's estimates, it appears Municipal Court would require funding •
for at least two clerks and two cashiers. This need may be reduced based on
information from ATS or any other red light camera vendor once a presentation is
made to the council.
2
Using Judge Olwell's expenditure estimates the cost of additional staffing and
interpretation related costs is approximately $201,000.
The police department is seeking direction from the Public Safety Committee in
determining the next step in this process.
We propose the Public Safety Committee consider one of the following
recommendations:
1. The Public Safety Committee directs the police department to organize a
demonstration from Red Light Camera Vendors to the full council in a special
study session.
2. The police department moves no further on this issue and Red Light Cameras
and School Zone Cameras not are an option for the City of Yakima?
We wish to remind the Public Safety Committee there is no way for the department
to assure the council of future resources since it is based on traffic violations. The
only assurance the department can give to the council is if we needed, can request
the cameras be moved to different locations for enforcement purposes.
411
•
3
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Yakima Public Safety Committee
•
From: Kelley C. Olwell, Presiding Judge, Yakima Municipal Court
Susan J. Woodard, Judge, Yakima Municipal Court
Linda Hagert, Court Services Manager, Yakima Municipal Court
Date: March 29, 2010
Re: Traffic Safety Cameras /Impact on the Municipal Court
This memorandum is to advise of the potential impact that issuing citations from the
installation of Traffic Safety Cameras will have on the Municipal Court.
Based upon research conducted by the Yakima Municipal Court and by Capt. Copeland of
the Yakima Police Department, it appears that infraction filings would increase significantly.
Moses Lake realized a 3,890 increase in filings with two cameras — one red light camera and
the other for school zones. Because the City of Yakima is twice the size of Moses Lake,
Yakima should expect to see a 7,780 increase in filings. Tacoma, (a city much larger than
Yakima) saw an increase of 21,000 tickets in 2009 for nine cameras (2,300 tickets per
camera).
The Municipal Court's current staff can not handle any further responsibilities without
• additional human resources. As you are already aware, the court lost a cashier position in
October, 2009, due to budget reductions for the year 2010. As a result of that loss the
court's customer service window hours have been reduced to four hours per day. Even with
the reduction of hours of the customer service window, it is extremely difficult to keep up
with the voluminous and most often, time sensitive documents and cases that must be
processed on a daily basis.
Since its inception the Municipal Court has operated on much Tess human resources than
other court that are similar in size and type of caseload for example:
Renton Municipal =1 judicial staff and 14 clerks
Kent Municipal = 2 judicial staff and 13 1 /2 clerks
Bellingham Municipal = 2 judicial staff and 12 3/4 clerks
Everett Municipal = 1.7 judicial staff and 12.3 clerks
Yakima Municipal Court currently operates with 2.5 judicial staff and a total of 8.5 clerical
staff. As you can see by the comparisons above, the court clerical staff in Yakima Municipal
Court is well under that of other courts of comparable size and caseload.
If red light cameras are to be implemented in Yakima, it would necessitate the hiring of
additional staff for the municipal court. For every three cameras utilized, the court would
need to hire one additional clerk. For each clerk hired, the court's budget would increase by
$53,500, including benefits and for every cashier hired, the court's budget would increase
by $43,000, including benefits. These clerks would be necessary to assist in answer the
0 increased phone calls, opening and posting the increase in mail, assisting the public at the
counter (which also means the windows would, once again, need to be open eight hours
per day), and as judicial support in the courtroom for the large increase in hearings that the
court will incur — which will also increase interpreter costs by approximately $9,000.
6
Another immediate concern is fling space for the volume of citations that will be issued and
subsequently filed in the Municipal Court. The Municipal Court is already at capacity with its
filing space and any further citation types would result in a swallowing the little remaining
space that the court has. Furthermore, depending upon how many cameras are placed and,
therefore, how many additional clerks would need to be hired, it may be difficult to find the
space in the clerk's office for more bodies.
This memorandum is intended as a general illustration as to the effects on the court should
the city council decide to utilize red light and /or school zone cameras. Depending upon how
many cameras are utilized and the method for filing and payment collection the council
chooses to employ, the amount of staff needed and financial impact on the court could
increase or decrease. However, regardless of the numbers of cameras utilized and /or how
tickets are filed and payments are received, the court will realize and increase in telephone
traffic, foot traffic at the window and court hearings.
•
•
YAKIMA POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE: April 14, 2010
TO: DC Rosenow
FROM: Capt. Copeland
SUBJECT: Further RLC information
I was asked to provide further information on the financial aspects of a RLC program. To
that end, I had further conversations with Bill Kroski of ATS (American Traffic Solutions).
A few points:
• ATS contracts typically include what he terms a "Cost Neutral Guarantee ". This
basically means that ATS will not charge the entity more than the cameras bring in.
Keep in mind, however, that ATS will not enter into a contract until after they have
conducted a study in a given area and have assured themselves that an area has the
potential to make enough money to cover their costs. Also, the "Cost Neutral
Guarantee" only applies to amounts paid by the entity to ATS —it does not cover
additional employee or other expenses (i.e. additional clerks) the entity may incur.
ATS will also want to make sure that entities area setting the fine (typically $124.00)
at a level high enough to generate the revenue needed.
• If revenue begins to decrease due to community education, they will consider moving
the equipment to a new location.
o As far as a revenue forecast, Bill cautioned me (and I will caution you) that
what follow is purely an estimate, no guarantees attached whatsoever.
However, he estimates based on his time in Yakima that there are 7 -8 "sites"
(a "site" is an intersection or school zone —each "site" normally has two
cameras— though some may only have one) that may be suited for red light or
school zone camera enforcement. For each site, ATS's flat contract rate is
$4750.00 per month. An industry norm is that each site will produce about 5
paid tickets per busy traffic day (26 days per month is normally used as the
number of "busy traffic days "). The site may produce other tickets that do not
end up producing revenue for one reason or another, but about 5 paid tickets
per busy traffic day is the norm. So, a site that produces 5 paid tickets of
$124.00 each 26 days per month will create revenue of $16,120.00 per month.
Once the $4750.00 is subtracted, that leaves a balance of $11,370.00 per site.
Seven such sites would create monthly revenue of $79,590.00.
• I recognize that Bill is a salesman and believe we should revisit these numbers after
(and if) his firm does a study in Yakima.
• He stated that sites usually produce 8 -10 tickets per day at the start, but then settle
down to about 5 per day over a three year period.
• Bill concurs that there certainly is an impact on the court system for those who wish
to contest the tickets. His firm has a variety of processes that he feels ease the burden
to entities —(such as fine collection methods, etc). He can likely elaborate on these if
a point is reached where ATS and /or other firms present further information to the
Council.
• He also concurs that there is some Officer time involved as well. He believes that,
once trained, and officer could review the video for all tickets produced by 7 -8 sites
in an hour or two —most officers can review 2 -3 violations per minute.
4
• Further, he advises (and it is common sense) that there is other officer /admin time
involved as well —such as handling citizens who wish to complain about the process
or the concept. Many of these complaints could end up at City Hall or be played out •
in court as well.
• If we end up starting an RLC program, I would recommend that initially we devote
one officer to the program full time. The officer could review the violations, handle
citizen complaints, show citizens videos of their violation, etc. As time goes on the
program may not need all of an officer's time —that could be re- considered a few
months into the program.
• The actual tickets are generated and sent by ATS.
G Copeland
•
5
,� � s+ rf bli-re �Q �5 //i dj - y
P (
A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found:
"The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes.
http.//www.theneW SDaDer.com/rIc/docs/2007/07-vdot2.pdf
In 2005, The Washington Post found:
"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365
collisions in 1998 to 755 last year injury and fatal crashes climbed 81
262. Broadside crashes, also known as right -angle or T -bone collision percent, 0pe 144 such wrecks 6
during that time frame."
percent, from 81 to 108
hnP, / /www thenewsnaper com /news /Ob /687.asn
The importance of the yellow warning signal time in reducing the instances of red light running is found in
the following reports:
• A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found:
"An increase in yellow duration of 1 0 seconds is associated with a (crash frequency] of about 0. 6,
which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes."
Rea a summa
ui__� _c_opy, 1 5mb pdf
http: //www thenewspaper com /rIc/docs/04- altematives.pdf
• A 2001 report by the Majority Leader of the U S. House of Representatives found:
'The changes in the yellow signal timing regulations have resulted in the inadequate yellow times.
And these inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries. °
Full version with summa
htt o. / /www.thenewsnanar com /ric/reoorts/ric re rt as
The NMA has been contending that red-light cameras (RLCs) are a detriment to motorist safety
for many years.
People, both in the media and in the general public, often dismiss this claim as opinion, su
that there isn't enough data available yet, ask why we support ggest
don't), or write off the organization as being biased. PPort people who run red lights (we
The only way to combat this is through hard facts and independent research. Luckily, we have
both.
We reiterate our challenge: If it's not about the money, then prove it.
No community has accepted, which shouldn't be surprising considering the facts.
Here are five independent studies that demonstrate the failure of red -light cameras as a safety
measure:
1) A Long Term Study of Red -Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February, 1995
This study examined the long term effect on accident-types
intersections in Melbourne, Australia. The cameras were installed led i red-light 984, and reported
accidents for the period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.
Quotes from the study:
"The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide
any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches
accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at
intersection signals "
"There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure."
Download The Full Study
2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo -Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council
June 2007
The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expandin
into the safety effects of red fight cameras in Vir 8n earlier research
this study was instrumental in the giros. Despite showing an increase in crashes,
proven negative safety impact, the clear incentive to bring back the cameras Virginia. With a
was money
Quotes from the study
"After cameras were installed rear -end crashes increased for the entire six jurisdiction study
area ._ After controllingfor time and traffic volume at each intersection rear -end crash rates
increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area. "
"After cameras were installed total crashes increased."
"The impact of cameras on injury severity is too close to call. "
"Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the
study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to
all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions."
Dovwnload The Full Stud
3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
(Vice of the Majority Leader
US. House of Representatives
May 2001
This report was prepared by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's staff. It looks at the
problems of red -light cameras and how to really deal with traffic-light violations.
Quoted from the study;
"And one should ask the question if there's a problem with an intersection, why don't safety
engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?
In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that's exactly what our regulations
instructed them to do If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were
supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started
collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety
regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to "use
enforcement" instead
Indeed according to the Federal Highway Administration these problem intersections serve as
a great location to hold a press conference. The agency offers a script for local officials to
exploit a tragically mistimed intersection to call for the installation ofadditional red light
cameras and tout their safety benefits.
But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety
benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear -end collisions associated with red
light cameras as "non-significant," despite evidence to the contrary Second they do not
actually look at red light intersection accidents The latest accident study in Oxnard Cali orni
for example, only documents accident reductions "associated with"—not by— red light
caused f
cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal
if you don't look too closely
Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before
joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in
New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the
country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America
is the same individual o the "objective" testimony that they are effective.
A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing ae re lations for our traffic
lights The Institute o Trans g f �' �
f Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even
drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit
handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver's license.
In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local
governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue."
Download The Full Stud
4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red -Light Cameras In Small
Urban Areas
Mark Burkey, PhD. & Kofr Obeng, Ph.D.
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
July 2004
A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University's Urban Transit Institute for the
United States Department of Transportation.
Quoted from the study.
"Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze
reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period for a total of
17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models,
we find that
The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead we find that
RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes. "
Download The Full Study
5) Evaluation of the Red - Light - Camera - Enforcement Pilot Project
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
December 2003
This report from Ontario, Canada's Ministry of T
using photo enforcement ex Transportation's concluded that jurisdictions
rear-end collisions. The experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury and angle collisions. However, ac closer took at the �overall reduction in serious
sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, in , this overall, 2 percent in fatal and injury collisions compared perienced, overall, a 2 percent
intersections that were r a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera -fi�ee
used as a control group (page ge Z 1 ).
In fact, the non - camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident
category
Quoted from the study
"Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have.
* Contributed to a 4 9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear -end collisions, and
* Contributed to a 49 9 per cent increase in property damage only rear -end collisions.
The rear -end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera
g studies."
Download The Full Stud
This is by no means an exhaustive list. You can find more studies on the NMA website here:
Photo Enforcement Studies.
May (1;2010 Yakima City Council Presentation Richard Marcley 812 So 11 Ave Yakima 206 755 6902
City of Yakima: Population 84,000 Claim to fame, the only city in the State with two vision triangles.
4, G t
R; tz 3? ;F::. 3 o f �. �� �v , - 4-5: � } p , a y - a 6 _ �-^'- . , _ Il z-kh.. R 1 k. 30 --
y :*:i s �'"p� 0. 444,J4 $ , x ': + e OR*4`� 2,1 )P v d. g '''''''*''r : t',.i';N z. x> wr+- ':pF,7 cs{T ; 4 ? . q) ,.
).i 9• 1 . ' k i,,..4,..",,,,
'`'��r S •c.
^ 'tt!' IYR iI liilTr+6R it 06itta 74 � : 11 , 20 :- _ _ rv:
--- **1 1 f: 1 4 . ,:re"."' IAS 13 W ;W°"---
Figure -1 - } ' 4,;,:::
•
Vision Clearance , 1 u , if i ;�
Triangle , . ° 'i
h
j iL �,{,,
City of Everett: Population 98,000
� EE 1 I f ..g� t , f�, i e, - 4 cl
oo�l,.sl M� ' �EVer ' etf, WA;Munlclp`al'Coda �il��Wekomet _o��Tab6ed'� &owsUig�;��.1 , lJ1 � .® _ � "���. ,��,00s , ,
y- *a- _.+ „".. -{ - .r=.- --H - ^-s
a tonal- om a zy s ., First a -: Hit rNext.Hit Pre it ::j Prev Doc Next Doc -: f H `.il New Search.
,<ror. .
r w- ..,_ , rrncen- rrvr*ntvrrcyc n-rcr ov - 'e+++n+rperccrat..... 1. ,.•.. , axmeemc'crs- orv. ,.. . n
a.�., .... ic'�rvcntr ro -e-cq arrcanr r
-ercc.ror
39 - .0
180 In commercial zones, fences may not be located between any public street and the front of any building unless required for
screen purposes by Chapter 35.
C All corner building sites Located in use districts that require a front and a side yard shall maintain a clear triangle at the
' intersection of the street and/or alley rights -of -way for the purpose of traffic safety No building, structure, object or growth over thirty-
six inches in height, measured from the mean grade of the intersecting streets, shall be allowed within this triangle. One angle of this
• triangle shall be formed by the intersecting street rights -of -way and the sides of the triangle measured along the property lines from
said angle shall be fifteen feet in length; the third side of such triangle shall be a straight line connecting the ends of the two
aforementioned lines.
0 Retaining Walls and - Berms. Fences placed on top of berms shall be constructed so as not to exceed the maximum height
allowed if the berm were not there. Fences placed upon rockeries or retaining walls shall be permitted to be constructed to the
maximum allowable fence height above the rockery or retaining wall, provided the rockery or retaining wall does not exceed a height
of six feet. Fences constructed on top of retaining walls which are greater than six feet in height shall not exceed a maximum fence
height of forty -two inches.
E. Barbed Wire, Razor Wire, and Other Similar Dangerous Fence Materials. Such materials are not permitted in any residential
zone except for security facilities around utility or communications facilities, or other special property uses. In commercialand
industrial zones, these fencing materials are permitted only atop a fence or wall at least six feet in height Such fencing material shall
not be conspicuously visible from arterial streets or residentially zoned properties.
F Electric Fences. Electric fences are permitted only in the A -1 zone. (Ord. 2657 -02 § 45, 2002; Ord. 2538 -01 § 68, 2001 Ord.
1849 -92 § 49 1992; Ord. 1671 -89 (part), 1989.)
39.075 Front lot line on corner sites.
A. When a development site -is comprised of more than one platted lot or parcel of land, the planning director shall determine
which lot line is to be the front lot line,
B. In making the determination of front lot line the Planning director shall use the following criteria:
15 feet
1
i5 feet
May 6, 2010 Yakima City Council Presentation Richard Marcley 812 So 11 Ave Yakima 206 755 6902
City of Kent: Population 84,000
Kent City Code
the structure shall be located so that one -half (1 /2) the minimum yard provision
Request: intersections occurs at any point along such averaged alignment.
Items l - 10 of 19 next 9
Document
Chapter 9.36 TRAFFIC C CODE `Y 15 Visibility at intersections in residential districts.
.9.36.020 Inattentive driving. On a corner lot in any residential district, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted
9.36.030 Avoidance of intersection, or allowed to grow in such a manner as materially to impede vision between a height
penalty. starts. 9 36 6.040 Breaking traction — qui of two and one -half (2 1/2) and ten (10) feet above the centerline grades of the
Chapter 12.11 COUCURRENCY intersecting streets in the area bounded by the street lines of such corner lots and a
MANAGEMENT line joining points along the street lines twenty (20) feet from the point of the
.portion of the traffic entering and leaving't
city. Affected intersection means a intersection.
designated signalized intersection as set i
20
ft -
Lott
City of Bellingham. Population 79,000
-SIGHT oIST' Hr.E 12E0t)I11EF1Ei,TS MR 2t5 imph
u RESIDE, IIFL - STREET'S
4�
rn
4 A 12.5' irE:.SU6 9 Ftt018.+ui
0 B -1 EYE HEIGHT • OF A}' TO
C� .. I�u' CBaES1' HEIGHT OF 4'
U 1) I 125- ® 25
7-
ua I
n
°
'
I
T rTI 0 lam' uF56URED £IC F'61I
C7 � . 64 EYE IHT Cr Z5i4'
V rn Z C t2a'
n1 b h I t
n ;
i
C] �
I l hill
1 =
r
May 6, 2010 Yakima City Council Presentation Richard Marcley 812 So 11 Ave Yakima 206 755 6902
City of Spokane Valley. Population 86,000
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Peen LI1 I.UUe
triangle j - b Two -Way Stop Controlled Intersection. The right triangle having a 16-
Search , ( Help I fo side measured along the curb line of a local access street (or five feet from edge
of pavement for a street with no curbs), alley or commercial driveway and the
ivanced Options 1 distance shown on Table 22.70 -1 based on posted speed along the side along the
!arch Results curb line of the intersecting street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with
no curbs) (see Figure 22.70 -3); or
•se dearview triangle Figure 22.70 -3 Two -Way Stop Controlled Intersection
Items l -4ot4
Document
,. .7
220 v
env zone within the area .wen pimp. , _ oEfia.e van.. n
ted as the "dearview triangle" _
,rth below: L A dearview ,. B1P / -
T 10.40 DISTRICT PURPOSE ' - -4..,!4. , r ,/,,,,,, y r ,i` c l; \ \ . ` Y" '' _ _ ^ —. ^°umum
4TIOn5 — RESIDEPtTIRL .4<.,./ - , 1 ,
incipal or accessory structure r
located vaithin the clearview t
e {Chapter 22.70 SVMC). B. In I I axe I' MORE i wauenr Tam= Ile
9ct5 where r ralPan"l M irCVM Mon a Ire n°.o",r
:r 22.110 SIGN REGULATIORS
arrnart.o orvwnr on newt ar'row
City of Vancouver Population 163,000
t d.Y � - , . Pi•rd R , :Progres s ; O t t Possi h ill�ties, • 1 l i V;' Ci f~ 1 - - ,--, -- - , -_ "' -•• - 'a ` -
u......gitsa
1 I
I it
1 II
1 11
d
1 II
.t l; i 11. tI
IT Tii i,atra°
ii it
ll
City of Seattle. Population 598,500
AP F , f � � , 9 1 it : , ar* -) ,' X ^: , e i 1 .t. i r e D-1 il, r Y 1 , �� rl 7'W
j B� d. a. i.i ( t o r G di , � 5 � ¢ r r i} .r1' ,taJ t t y Y�li 7 l t r ((a' X h� j ' {� z� . rr t x1c4 pi : 1s(. 9 0 4
r1 Ykr, Ili` �6:�s .d rd>#' $1• ifi/,s F , G p ,
AN ORDINANCE relating to the regulation of woods and lt T' y t . F;a' r � % ' ,' r.. , r ti It. f {? ' L " 's , I'. , r . •
vegetation In the City of Seattle and repealing t ' t T a tty ; t i ' ) n i , s . • 4 r t i 1
Ordinance 78076, and portions of Ordinances 98149, 4 �' ' 1 t � '' i , ` s �'�;� „�{�� l r ( t ; i• I' + fi t •
98365, 11074?, 110675, and 110695. ! t� ! y r, : r '� k t: , ` 4' e ,' } : 414 .. i p
j Safety Hazard Vegetation which•�overhangs the
.I
streets, sidewalk or alley in ouch a way as to
1
impede the free and full use of the street,
sidewalk, or alley, and vegetation which obstructs
o
the vision of drivers such that traffic regulation
I'
signs or view of an intersection is obstructed from
a position of thirty (3o) 'feet or Closer to the
intersection, and vegetation whiehi.creates injury to
or the opportunity or risk for injury to passersby
or the general public.
,..
May 6, 2010 Yakima City Council Presentation Richard Marc ley 812 So 11 Ave Yakima 206 755 6902
City of Richland Population 46,100
1TTL 12
0 AND. al DEVVAL.IrCe•
F itv of Richlarid
.. EXHIBIT " - TABUS II
VISION CILE.A.RA.MOE TRVIINGIZLE - PAINIMClibIl DIMENSIONS
511 W11.07 Hi VIMI OLIE-AR.A.N 71.11.11.5934 0I4.T.4.1.106 IFE9.77 9
MPH 0
44. 9 a
55 3.0 1S SS 15 140
9S 1S SO IS 129;
40 IS 55 iS 119
49 IS 14. 195
39
14. 4.0 14. 149
50 30 14. 114. 14. 170
39 IS 110 14. 14.
40 1S las 14. 144.
44. 1S 105 iS =SO
96 15 I ClO 1.5 150
as so 14. 133; 1S "...W.AS
39 15 193 1.5 I55
40 14. 15 13 17S
4-3 IS 13 15 Z40
99 15 153 15 . 51S
40 3.0 IS 190 iS .593
39 15 193 1S .31S
40 14. I44. 1S 305
49 14. 14S IS 7
39 iS 155 15 293
'.: -......V
,
s I
Fiz.. .,
4.• p att . - ,,,,i,-;, .,..
1 .-.,..
_,,,, .4 w ,„,....(.. ,..,.*,;:,.4,,:....,,:,,'-',';ii,ti
Z'.;:f',f-‘j.1-''e.::,"154:44ii._„,.7''I',i;;t.''W;''-TtSP.__Z',.M'ii;:'1!K'.-:.?. '",r14,Stritzlt,,,::..-'=„44-...;,:l
i6ilif.1-7.,-,-45,4rV.-tic.,,,44,-*sta-,,,il:73-..:r,,4't,:`• ;.' '". 41 t" 4.
w* it ,
ri.aitr itti . it --04 ':: I tiir. - 'il'lli*T..'.4';', - ...".''.,--iv , ,i1,:,;`..-`, '' .,..' .....,?.;.: '''- ',..;"-. ' '7■."14::.:t:;*:1:;!;.,1:...';;;',,,,...L....,1t..-;11
...'../.. .11:4..4"-„,4f-, .4":4...........5.,-.0.4.. . . el., -,....1,-..t.41:+4,r,.1,-
k...'...''''...t c 7,Z.i..'2...li•-::',;i:.';'' t'ira4,%:!.":4;:t:"V:Q.::.,.).4.14-744;44A-4;1:-.aa'4',.;;;;',k'J.,41;5:;s:/7.fit,
Matz.: - Ib .e.a_s_ b34� on P car- ht 513v
c canW3 .. ... ... . ru ..sarair,2 .raro.,,,, 3.5. .,b,..... ,,.....0.,.v.
z..r -7- ecIl ri. , - 3r-ce Os Ctl-t....4•1-e ...,
2r.' '251- :: .. ancV 51-migr1t an2nment. ut 7113110e mad& tocs3r1i14.=
zri rilsre trrasn 3..1i mrsal curve.z.. , .. r...u.,..... ...., ,.,6 15%. c.r.,..at„..,z ..,..,...h.tr,...74
eze au:..-nd.-ntrza
47 Mime nrAcn. a rmmy :De rea...._fta 13.Y
..211anc.s...
51 a
v - vela=ty (NI
J - P.exceo,lanire....mr&on time am 1 l
tm - a
Vane. o ocr.,elerate. ar tr 015t31114.
City of Kirkland Population 47,000
VliEerflio.117ATEiRiPk:151-TIEVOTii:§JA:a6_,Eg
Figure 2
Sigle distance Wangle Cese 13, Band E
IS top-controlled. signafizeil .
intersections and driveways). P.egt,4rel Sight Distance Value at), SEE TABLE 2
Stop Sign -.0s- tytetor Street
ic. , ..,-..0....,.„, , , , v#4.1.
. .. '7:. ....;..q_,t2..2 L,.. • P
- i 'Iv _,...-
1 ib Point B
114 r -'--
fig
-- ` - ',...14,4,, , , - - - .isivtio -. '"tl - - 4 -• ' ,, tgivvif,,„,_„iii.-• .
-:'... , t1 ,- t .
i, - -;-- Located et the center of majer
AV,4.- !$ -- ,..- ,6. , street approach thiough lane
-- P
1:_k %
•-;:',t. rin_ktv rz.,::::7''''--
- - -- - Stop SIDo or m tho center of the mato(
, -1 1 : ::,--- - .r.• street approach if more than
.40
One lane exists.
(A) Point A
Minor Street Located at the center of the minor street approach lane
10 It from the edge at traveled way for driveways and
14 ft for stag controlled and signalized intersections.
May 6, 2010 Yakima City Council Presentation. Richard Marcley 812 So 11 Ave Yakima 206 755 6902
City of Wenatchee. Population 29,000:
. -rZ, °f Werzatchee . pp - ,Y /
k ... / F
F - t � Y "� � i e f + . s . +�.f
L '�•
{ t ' S ; y_ yr - 4 y 4, `S Yp (4 q. Y ` i "<Sn'ha � ,Py r t 7 Hi3 Qr4 t t3 t HI Hitt � •,, ,Hide Hl r1 t ty P gOC .
-, ;A'1 ,: '' 4 ,, _ � m � re,••2ZI L' �„S ;€ :�� �r';usiY' I. ` -, co -u.un � v'1+ rc'1%"&i, u'i a ,
• ,c,�r .,.
0 the property line along the street right-of-way In those circumstances where access,
we• I ; building Iocation, utilities, or other factors restrict the, ability to meet the minimum 50
`Advanced•S+earcN ' ; �
' �(�a perceM standard; the applicant shell provide for an adjustmeM of landscaping as
detailed in WCC 10.62.050.
{-.
'.. ,+ St-:•>'r'ohtCaite:' (c).The, landscaping area shall consist of deciduous, or deciduous and
wog evergreen, trees, ground cover and shrubs as follows:
, . ; ''-'111133:1221111111:131:"':::.. (1) Trees spaced no more than 40 feet on center
(A) At least 70 percent of the trees shall be deciduous;
M n� a onti ns. (l3) Trees shall not be located closer than three feet to the curb of the
I ,, ,: • public right -of -way or parking b[.
Starch Resul 's ;i . (ii) Shrubs not exceeding a height, of four feet spaced an average of at
"' itcnudse is ," u - least one for each 50's•uare feet of required'• ranting area. • ' •
u 7 i a " iii In no.case shall sight- obscuring landscaping (greater than 30 inches In
o ""'• e t t height,- except trees lim b
bed up to, live feet in height) e'iocated within 10 leer ot;a
Ssdst i 4 s3 .t�2 r � aG a;
,"
. se-wrrt .; .r. ,>. G+.M� i nont:o ed Intersection nonlighted intersedior or 11 •Mad intersection not •
.v x,. t+t,s _e,. y ,,. r , Uf+t id. r-ontrollin. traffic in all dirpeti hons).
, rbu tlinrt9 ri ,tots hi Le Will tha.veei.i " ' (3) Perimeter Landscape Screening -
end tl <>f edtWn
yitm croroe tr. thee.
� a.,av�rvna , - � . (a) Landscape screening shall be required along those perimeter property lines,
Y,t;�,' . 1s`so gr e: `. abutting or racing a residential zoning district, except along frontages - as equired
s.r, icd o a L ttie � va,pii* .r above. Consideration to terrain (slope) shall be given when applying these requirements
:iml+.n d vi.w of tile acme f w y a developing r mw
c.natrtt•rr ;:171 :i r,. p g landscape ans: P C n e 1 e
• v mu or to rlc ono c.- reen.nn , on con, .rn.i cY,e it Ho o uo ct civ fue .n
City of Walla Walla: 30,600
Walla Walla Municipal Code
rwse Advanced Search ci� B Controlled Intersections. At two -way stop and yield controlled right angle
intersections (signalized and all -way stop controlled are specifically excluded), the
ea Code stop or yield controlled street side of the Clearview Triangle shall be a distance of
fifteen (15) feet measured from the intersection of the extended curbline or the
iple i traveled right -of -way Of no curb exists). The major street side of the triangle shall be t:
Search 1 I Help l factor of the posted speed of the major street as noted in Table 20.114 -1 measured
along the extended curbline or the traveled right -of -way Of not curb exists.) The third
vanced Options side of the triangle is the straight line connecting the above defined lines. (Refer to
e to My Searches Figure 20.114 -2, Controlled Intersection.) Where the intersection of the two streets
Searches I Help forms an angle other than a right angle, the sight distance measurement along the
arch Results major street shall be determined by the City Engineer based upon a traffic study In
no case will the acute angle sight distance be less than those shown in Table
mesh vision triangle .t 7n 114_1
City of Sunnyside
Su ., .
r . - t s 9� C
.• y r
.. a l ,' + ., f r ,ry
h .4f S' ,y w F t d. t r ) . b "f -r y *t cG SG ,
- "t" 4.6: df�t•. t'ar a f' S, +wti2• �i"w',' ' i � r -.' .., ..
' .<
- _ :s; r zi a e I %?'• - - e g ;g " Yt 1 k } .# r .` '?+
` it `t �' 4 = ;'... .:11'. -e 3�Xti a ;# ta..,l
. ,. :1 4 { s ifi0'1 i "Drill!
t''x`� r :�)€ ,� }ri .. -,t �%- ., ...a c .. ,...; {...:t+ ., .dirt $i' . °#��, 4�.i r .�
- -, i , . t & l ji lime and shat be foreclosed and enforced in the same manner and irne as provided l
h -4*�,. _ , : ' 2 `' t ;: • .,. the lantis cif the State for such liens for labor and materials [1956 Code § 9-701 § 3]
(ii r *f * * - - J.cis n i :
wir its � '` 12.28, 090 Obstructions at Intersections.
sermcn?s ..ta A On property at any comer formed 1 intersecting streets" it is unlawful to install, set
•ter „ ,_ �,�,,. c.�s �. . N.�...,<.,��i,-
ngT,afl if, s ; out or maintain, or to allow' the insta et on setting out, or maintenance of, or to permit
?loam c ar iiiiii�cf W . ¢ a sign, hedge, trees, shrubby}, natural growth or other obstruction to m e�i to be
} x g,,./.1....,
..mss higher than three feet abo,�e the level of the center of the adjacent intersectionvwithin The
A ; �rcEt sN eta M 3, : area bounded as fol Beginning at the center of the intersection of the adjacent
t ls: 4 x . - streets, vltrlch center is referred to as "init al point', thence commencing at said initial
. li ih la is t,. r � � 1 V > . : point and confining toward and along the centerline of one of said adjacent streets a
A i 441, ;4 4 0 , 4 ,4 Fry distance equal to tie width of said last mentioned street Cat its said intersection)
i s l ''r 1°; ',..0' �. Y extended an additional 30 feet to a point, which point 1s hereafter refefred to as "point of
s is is%i i iu beginning', thence in a straight line to a point located on the centerline of the other said
VetIC
May 6, 2010 Yakima City Council Presentation Richard Marcley 812 So 11 Ave Yakima 206 755 6902
Clarkston Municipal Code
nvse advanced Search tvi u. 1100 s 1 i aye '.0 avu uvu
. .ue i s 1 i •t.c.l
17 15.030 Measurement of clear- vision areas.
earth Code A clear - vision area shall consist of a triangular area two sides of which are street
gle 1 lines and the third side of which is a line across the corner of the lot connecting the
search I ruetp I ends of the other two sides. The size of a clear - vision area is determined by the
distance from the intersection of the two street lines to the third side, measured along
vanced options_ the street The size shall be as follows:
arch Results (1) In a residential zone, the distance determining the size of a clear - vision area
shall be 20 feet;
.est: vision triangle (2) In all other zones, the distance determining the size of a clear - vision area shall
terns 1 1 of 1 be 15 feet, except that where the angle of intersection between streets is less than
Document 30 degrees the city may require a greater distance. (Ord. 1138 1 1992. Code
17.15 SUPPIEFIErn - ARY g tY y Q g
T10NS 1966 § 17.04.030.]
ATIONS sections:
17 15.020 Clear- vision area requirements_
A clear- vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to
the intersection of two streets. A clear- vision area shall contain no planting, fence or
other temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height, measured
from the top of the curb or where no curb exists from the established centerline
grade of the street, except that trees exceeding three feet may be permitted if all
branches and foliage to a height of eight feet above the top of the curb or established
centerline grade are removed_
l
f
i -.7.:
1
" 1 -. —
CITY OF CH H;NEY
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CORNER VISIBILITY
This will ensure that driver and pedestrian views are not obstructed at street corners All structures,
fences, shrubs and trees which may obstruct vision should be below 3 feet in height near street corners
Anything (foliage, fences etc.) inside the "Clear View Triangle ", must not be over 3 feet tall The "Clear
View Triangle" is formed 20 feet along the .property lines from the intersection of two streets and includes
the area between those points (See drawing )