HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2001 0919 CC REG ITEM 10DITEM
of -19- aoo 1
ACT; :. °'
Moorpark City Council ""'p
lanai, -t-
Agenda Report -to c4w.t ���
-�--�
o�r�r�e�cafion • , � "�._
TO: The Honorable City Council
J
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works,
DATE: September 13, 2001 (Council Meeting: 9- 19 -01)
SUBJECT: Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Agreement
OVERVIEW
The County has developed a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
to provide a mechanism for the collection of fees to fund future
County roadway improvement projects which would, to some degree,
mitigate the impacts to County roads caused by urban development
within the ten (10) cities. The County has also prepared a
Reciprocal Agreement between the County and each city, which
provides for the payment and /or collection of those fees. This
presents for approval, the subject Agreement between the County
of Ventura and the City of Moorpark.
nT.gMTSSTnm
A. Documents
A copy of the draft Engineer's Report for the subject program
has been distributed to the City Council. A copy of the drat
Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1. The City Attorney has
reviewed and approved, as to form, the subject Agreement.
B. Background
For some time now the County of Ventura has been working on
the development of the subject Program. In an effort to seek
approval and implementation of this program by all Ventura
County cities, County staff hosted a number of meetings with
appropriate staff from each city to discuss and, hopefully,
develop a consensus regarding the scope, methodology and
resultant fees generated by the proposed program. Those
meetings were held over a number of months starting in early
Traff fee county - 010905 �;;
County Traffic Mitigation Fee
August 24, 2001
Page 2
2000. The scope, methodology and resultant fees went through
a number of changes as the result of the input the County
received at those meetings. The final document represents a
general consensus of those who participated in the process.
C. Program Description
A general description of the program is as follows:
1. Purpose: Urban growth in each of the cities increases
traffic on County roads. The purpose of the subject
program is to provide to each city in the County, an easy -
to- manage method and system for addressing or mitigating
these impacts in a fair and comprehensive manner. Absent
such a program, the County would have to continue the
current practice of requesting payment of Traffic Impact
Fees for developments throughout the County on a case -by-
case basis. That process requires the County to request
traffic impact assessments as a part of the review and
comment on the draft Environmental Document for each
project, on a case -by -case basis. This practice not only
requires an inordinate amount of staff time on the part of
both the County and each city, it fails to provide any
sense of fairness or equity between each project and /or
between each city. The proposed program attempts to provide
• method of allowing each city to mitigate such impacts in
• uniform, fair and equitable manner.
2. Congestion Management Program: A number of years ago, as
required by law, each of the cities and the County
participated in the development of, and ultimately
adopted, a countywide Congestion Management Program (CMP).
That program provides for the development of Multi -
Jurisdictional Deficiency Plans when a given agency
determines that traffic congestion in their jurisdiction
has been worsened by the traffic generated by a land
development project in a neighboring jurisdiction. That
process is cumbersome, expensive and prone to litigation.
The subject program attempts to avoid that burdensome
process by establishing a simple fee.
3. Districts: The program divides the urbanized portion of
the County into Districts. The fees generated by the
program are based upon the number of NEW TRIPS
(hereinafter "Trips ") generated by land development within
each of those Districts. A map showing the Districts is
attached as Exhibit 2. Moorpark is District #4.
Traff fee_ county_ 010905 <+ 4,�f;• '�
County Traffic Mitigation Fee
August 24, 2001
Page 3
4. Per Trip Fee: Under the program each project (except for
those specifically exempt due to limited size or impact)
would be required to pay a Trip fee based upon the number
of Trips generated by that project.
5. Reciprocity: Under the program, if a development project is
within a city, the fee is collected by the city and paid to
the County. If that project is outside the city but within
that city's District, the fee is collected by the County
and paid to the city.
6. Fee Calculation:
a) Traffic Model: A traffic model developed by the County
predicts the number of new trips [ "Trips "] which will
be generated by new development through the year 2020.
The program is able to identify the number of Trips to
be added to each District.
b) List of County Projects : The County has developed a
list of road segments and intersection improvement
projects (with cost estimates) to be funded, in part, by
the fees generated by this program.
c) Cost Spread: The cost of each project on the list has
been spread to each of the Districts based upon the
number of Trips generated within each District. Project
costs are thus spread on the basis of relative benefit.
d) Fee Amount for Each District: The per Trip fee for each
District is determined by dividing the total of the
proportionate share of the project cost for that
District, by the number of Trips generated within that
District.
e) Draft Fee Amounts: A chart showing the current draft
fee amount for each District is attached as Exhibit 3.
The per trip fee for the Moorpark District is $155.45 /
SF Residential unit.
f) Different, But Fair: Although the per Trip fee is
different for each District, the differing fees are
deemed to be fair and equitable because they are based
upon the relative benefit [cost per trip] received by
each District.
7. Applicability: The new fee would not apply to any project
for which a Tentative Map had been approved, a Development
or Settlement Agreement had been approved or a Planned
Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit has been
approved prior to the effective date of the Agreement.
Traff fee_county_010905 , -;
-
Y "" :X-
County Traffic Mitigation Fee
August 24, 2001
Page 4
D. Oversiqht Committee
The County will prioritize the projects set forth in the
Engineer's Report and presumably schedule the expenditure of
the fees generated by these fees based upon that priority
list. A committee, to be made up of all of the cities
participating in the countywide reciprocal program, will be
established to review and provide input to the process used
to generate that priority list.
E. Change to Wording of the Agreement
Sections I -E and II -E of the Agreement state that each party
would not challenge a project which had been approved by the
other. Pursuant to this language, either party could object
to a project during the review process, but would not
subsequently challenge in court the approval of that project.
This language may be deleted from the final draft agreement
between the County and the City of Moorpark. If such action
is taken, each party would preserve its right to challenge
any land use entitlement decision made by the other party.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the subject Agreement, subject to final language approval
by the City Manager and City Attorney, and authorize the Mayor to
execute said document.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Agreement
Map of Districts
Fee Amounts
Traff fee_county_010905 p
DRAFT - City of Moor
1
THIS AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made and entered info by
f�xN,Vt i i
6/01/2001
the
City of Moorpark, a municipal corporation ( "City "), and a Co ntura, a political
subdivision of the State of California ( "County "). and Co ime to t'
referred to herein individually as "Party" and colle a e "Parties'
A. City and unincorporated portions of
B. Traffic District #4 is ide d in
dictional borders.
Engineering Report, dated MF pr red b County of Ventura, Transportation
Der)artmedkovies of
eon fl
into s of unincorporated areas of County. Tra
of City and the Board of Supervisors of County jointly find as
established
#4,
lic Works Agency and the Public Works
he boundaries of this District extend beyond the
ffic District
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1. Future development or intensification of existing development (hereafter
collectively "Development ") of property within City or unincorporated areas
1
of County will result in an increase in traffic volumes that will cause the level
of service ( "LOS ") of certain intersections or road segments in the
unincorporated areas of County to fall below the minimum acceptable LOS
specified in the respective General Plans of City and County, unless those
intersections and road segments are improved so as to accommodate such
increase in traffic volumes; and
2. Such increase in traffic volumes will also cause additional air pollution, noise,
and restrictions on access for emergency vehicles within City and
unincorporated areas of County, unless such improvements to the
intersections and road segments are made; and
3. In the absence of an agreement to establish a method of reciprocal traffic
impact mitigation to be used in connection with future development within
City and County, existing and future sources of revenue will be inadequate
to fund such improvements to the intersections and road segments.
D. The Parties bear responsibility under the Congestion Management Law (Gov. Code
§65088, et seq.), and under the Ventura County Congestion Management Plan
( "CMP ") approved by the Ventura County Transportation Commission pursuant to
that law, to analyze and mitigate the regional traffic impacts of their respective land
use decisions. This Agreement fulfills, in part, that CMP mandate.
2
E. This Agreement also promotes the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan
adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG Resolution
#98- 385 -3).
F. Each party has a legal responsibility pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal.
Code of Regs., title 4, §15000, et seq.) to analyze the regional environmental
impacts of development approved by each Party, and to identify and implement
feasible mitigation measures. This Agreement addresses that responsibility with
respect to impacts attributable to additional traffic volumes on both County and City
roads resulting from development approved by either Party.
G. The Parties hereto wish to cooperate with each other in order to more effectively
respond to the legal obligations described above.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
Section I. Payment of Traffic Fee by City to County
A. For all development approved by City, a fee shall be imposed to reimburse County
for the project's pro -rata share of the cost of improvements to intersections and road
segments in the unincorporated area needed to accommodate additional traffic
generated by the development.
3
B. The amount of the Fee to be transferred to County with respect to any given
development project (as described in paragraph A above) shall be computed in
accordance with the following formula:
Fee = X *Y *Z
where:
X = $12.95 which is the cost per additional average daily trip of improvements to
intersections and road segments in the unincorporated area generated by
development projects. The list of intersections and road segment improvements
and the fee calculations for Traffic District #4 (District), are identified in the report
Zq7M 4MMT@ . & .. is ;_ -.. .. -.
prepared by the County of Ventura, Transportation Department.
Y = An inflation adjustment factor, based upon the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles area, to account for inflation from the
date of this agreement to the date the fee is computed. The County shall
recalculate in January of each year and send a copy of all calculations to the City
by the first day of February each year. City will apply and use the new factor no
later than the first day of March of the same year, provided County has timely sent
the calculations to the City.
4
_ 0 <; - °' �
Z = The estimated number of average daily trips that the project will generate
determined by either:
1) A traffic study approved by the City Public Works Director, or
2) The total average daily trips for projects as determined by the current
version of Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Traffic
Engineers or other such published data as routinely used by City to
determine traffic generation volumes.
C. The Fee shall be collected in accordance with one of the following alternatives:
1) City shall collect the Fee at the same time and in the same manner as City
collects other traffic mitigation fees imposed on the project. City shall
transfer the Fees to County within 30 business days after collection, or
2) The City may direct the applicant to pay said fees directly to the County. In
such case, City shall establish and enforce administrative procedures where
a building permit will not be issued for a project subject to this fee until an
applicant has provided satisfactory evidence that the County Fee has been
paid.
D. County may use the Fees transferred to improve the intersections and road
segments listed in the report entitled Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program:
Engineering Report, dated , prepared by the County of Ventura,
Transportation Department. County intends to make such improvements in such a
5
manner as to prevent the volume -to- capacity ratio of the intersections and road
segments from exceeding 0.84, but nothing herein creates a binding obligation upon
County to do so. County agrees to meet and confer with City at least annually on
the prioritization of projects and expenditure of funds collected or transferred to the
County under this agreement.
E. Provided that City fulfills the obligations placed on City by this Agreement, County
shall not challenge any development approved by City on the ground that the
project's traffic impacts on County roads have not been adequately evaluated or
mitigated.
F. County shall comply with all requirements of all applicable laws, including, without
limitation, Government Code §66000, et seq. with respect to the Fees that are
transferred to County.
G. County shall defend, indemnify, and hold City and its elected and appointed officers,
agents and employees free and harmless from any claim, demand, loss, cost,
expense, lien or judgment ( "Claim ") against City relating to the collection, attempted
collection, accounting for, expenditure, or legality of Fees designated for County
intersections and road segments. This indemnity shall also include, without
limitation, any Claim arising out of County's failure or alleged failure to comply with
any applicable law, including, but not limited to, Government Code §66000, et seq.
relating to the use of or accounting for Fees transferred to County.
6
Section II. Payment of Traffic Fee by County to City
A. For all development approved by County within the unincorporated portion of Traffic
District #4 that is subject to the Ventura County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee
Ordinance (Ventura County Ordinance Code §8601 -0 et seq.), an additional traffic
impact mitigation fee (the "Fee ") shall be imposed to reimburse City for the project's
pro -rata share of the cost of improvements to City intersections and road segments
needed to accommodate additional traffic generated by the project.
B. The amount of the Fee to be imposed on a project and transferred to City shall be
computed in accordance with the following formula:
Fee = A *Y *C
where:
A = $ , which is the cost of improvements to City roads and intersections,
required by each average daily trip generated by a project. Such figure is calculated
pursuant to City Council Resolution
dated (the value of "A" and
resolution, if applicable, to be provided by the City) or as updated annually by the
City of Moorpark.
Y = An inflation adjustment factor, identified and defined previously in Section I
(unless such adjustment is already included in A).
7
G:.:
C = The estimated number of average daily trips the project will generate
determined by either:
1) A traffic study approved by the County Public Works Director, or
2) The total average daily trips calculated according to the trip generation
rate established in County Resolution dated August 30, 1994. Such
trip generation rates are shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
C. County shall collect the Fee at the same time and in the same manner as other
traffic mitigation fees imposed on the project. County shall transfer the Fees to City
within 30 business days after collection.
D. City may use the Fees transferred to City to improve City intersections and road
segments as identified in (to be provided by the City). City agrees to meet and
confer with County at least annually on the prioritization of projects and expenditure
of funds collected or transferred to the City under this agreement
E. Provided that County fulfills the obligations placed on County by this Agreement,
City shall not challenge any discretionary project approved by County on the ground
that the project's traffic impacts on City intersectipns and road segments have not
been adequately evaluated or mitigated.
8
F. City shall comply with all requirements of applicable laws, including, without
limitation, Government Code §66000 et seq., with respect to the Fees that are
transferred to City.
G. City shall defend, indemnify, and hold County and its elected and appointed officers,
agents and employees free and harmless from any claim, demand, loss, cost,
expense, lien or judgment ( "Claim ") against County relating to the collection,
attempted collection, accounting for, expenditure, or legality of Fees designated for
City intersections and road segments. This indemnity shall also include, without
limitation, any Claim arising out of City's failure or alleged failure to comply with any
applicable law, including, but not limited to, Government Code §66000 et seq.,
relating to the use of or accounting for Fees transferred to City.
NOTE. Where a City does not have an existing traffic impact fee ordinance, Section
H will have to be modified to reflect either that this section will be applicable when
the City adopts a traffic impact fee ordinance OR alternatively payment to the City
will apply to projects exceeding a threshold value, or alternatively to discretionary
projects subject to CEQA, or such other alternative as the City and County may
determine is appropriate.
Section III. State Routes
The Parties agree that the responsibility for programming, budgeting, funding, and
accomplishing work on state highways rests with the California Department of
9
Transportation. The Parties recognize that the incremental and cumulative impact of
projects approved by the local jurisdictions may have an impact on state highways. City
and County agree to cooperate with each other and other agencies or entities as
appropriate and as required by State law in coordinating needed future improvements.
Such cooperation will include arranging local fair share funding for such improvements as
may be required by State law.
Section IV. Changes and Predecessor Agreement
This Agreement may be modified from time to time by mutual written agreement of both
Parties.
Section V. Notices
Whenever notices are required to be given pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement,
such notices shall be in writing and shall be served upon the Party to whom addressed by
personal service as required in judicial proceedings, or by deposit of the same in the
custody of the United States Postal Service or its lawful successor in interest, postage
prepaid, addressed to the Parties as follows:
CITY: Office of the City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
COUNTY: County of Ventura
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009 -1600
Attn: Director of Public Works
10
Notices shall be deemed, for all purposes, to have been given on the date of personal
service or three consecutive calendar days following the deposit of the same in the United
States mail, postage prepaid.
Section VI. Arbitration
A. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Parties hereto agree that any
claim or dispute between them, arising out of or relating to the terms of this
Agreement, shall be resolved by compulsory binding arbitration conducted by a
retired Superior Court Judge of the State of California or other qualified person the
Parties mutually agree upon. The claim or dispute being arbitrated shall be resolved
in accordance with California law.
B. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the laws and procedures
governing civil judicial proceedings in this State. Each party shall comply with all
applicable laws relating to binding and compulsory arbitration, the directions given
by the Arbitrator and the provisions of this Agreement. The determinations made
by the Arbitrator, if within the scope of the Arbitration and the Arbitrator's function,
shall be binding and conclusive on the Parties and shall be enforceable in the
manner provided by law.
C. The Arbitrator shall be selected in the following manner:
1. The Party initiating the Arbitration ( "Initiating Party") shall prepare and submit
to the other Party a list ( "List ") containing the names of not to exceed three
11
``� 0 !f ` ='t�
retired Superior Court Judges all of whom the Initiating Party believes are
qualified to serve as Arbitrator. The names of the judges on the List shall be
numbered consecutively.
2. The Party upon whom the List is served, within ten calendar days after
service of the List, shall either:
(a) select one of the named retired judges to act as Arbitrator, in which
case that retired judge shall serve as the Arbitrator; or
(b) strike one name from the List.
3. Upon expiration of said ten -day period, if no selection is made, the Arbitrator
shall be the retired judge on the List with the lowest number next to his or her
name, unless that judge's name was stricken during the ten -day period by
the non - initiating party.
4. If, for any reason, the retired judge designated as the Arbitrator is unwilling
or unable to serve as the Arbitrator, the judge on the List with the next lower
number whose name was not stricken shall be the Arbitrator. In the event
that none of the three retired judges named on a List is willing or able to
serve as the Arbitrator, the Initiating Party shall prepare and submit a new
List, containing the names of not to exceed three different retired judges, and
12
the above - described procedure shall be followed until an Arbitrator is
selected. By way of illustration, if the List served by the Initiating Party, upon
the other Party, has the name of three retired judges, A, B, and C, numbered
1, 2 and 3, respectively, and number 1 is stricken, then B, number 2, shall be
deemed for all purposes to be the selected Arbitrator.
D. Each party hereto hereby agrees to pay one -half of the compensation to be paid to
the Arbitrator, and, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each party shall
bear its own costs and expenses of arbitration, including, but not limited to,
attorney's fees and related costs.
Section VII. Severability
This Agreement shall not be deemed severable. If any provision or part hereof is judicially
declared invalid, this Agreement shall be void and of no further effect.
Section VIII. Exemptions
The following are exempt from paying of Traffic Impact Fees under this Agreement:
1. Projects approved by City or County as Lead Agency in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended prior to the date of
this agreement.
2. Projects with a vested tentative map pursuant to Government Code
§66498.1.
13
... fiC 1i}2�?
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereto have authorized their respective agents
to enter into this Agreement as follows:
CITY OF MOORPARK
By:
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
COUNTY OF VENTURA
0
Frank Schillo, Chair
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
14
,. Zzz At
Iri1PA cr I,ER
".. DIS'TR'ICT
4 (MoORPARh)
vEArTUR,q COUN
DRAINING NU TRANS DEPT.
Date R'ePared D05-31-01
ExxrBrT A
TRAFFIC GENERATION FACTOR TABLE
(Derived from County Resolution dated August 30, 1994
pursuant to Countv Ordinance Code X8601 -0, et seq.)
1 Computed in consideration of average trip length, pass -by trips and diverted linked trips, if applicable.
Measurement Unit Notes:
1. DU = Dwelling Unit
2. TSF = Thousand square feet of gross building area, or portion thereof.
3. VFS = Vehicle fueling station
4. Person = student pupil, client, or patient served.
a:\timf2 \1- ojai:sa \06 -01-01
EXHIBIT B
Measurement
Estimated
Land Use Category
Sub - category
Unit
ADT per unit'
Residential
Single Family
DU
12.0
Senior Housing
DU
3.6
Other Housing
DU
8.4
Commercial/
General
Industrial
Commercial /Retail
TSF
16.0
General Industrial
TSF
3.2
General Office
TSF
12.8
Gas Station
VFS
30.0
Auto Car Wash
Site
80.0
Car Wash - Self
Service
Stall
40.0
Hotel
Room
9.0
Quality Restaurant
TSF
62.0
High turnover/ Sit -down
Restaurant
TSF
130.0
Fast Food
Restaurant
TSF
182.0
Hospitals/ Care
Hospitals General
TSF
150
Facilities
Convel. Care
Bed
2.0
Day Care
Person
1.5
Other Uses
Determined by traffic study or analysis prepared to
satisfaction of County Public Works Director.
Exempt Uses
See County Resolution dated August 30, 1994 or successor
resolution.
1 Computed in consideration of average trip length, pass -by trips and diverted linked trips, if applicable.
Measurement Unit Notes:
1. DU = Dwelling Unit
2. TSF = Thousand square feet of gross building area, or portion thereof.
3. VFS = Vehicle fueling station
4. Person = student pupil, client, or patient served.
a:\timf2 \1- ojai:sa \06 -01-01
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT 2.5 -C
Existing Cit. Fee or Development Cost
Thousand Square Foot,
Thousand Square Foot,
Single Family
General Commercial
General Industrial
District
Residence Unit
Development
Development
1. Ojai
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2. Santa Paula
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
3. Filrnore
$766.00
$2,240.00
$1.650.00
4. Moorpark
$3.000.00
���
$�'�
5. Sari Va
$256.00
$515.00
$132.00
6. Thousand Oaks
$2,820.00
$2,520.00
$1,134.00
7. Caman1b
$4,451.00
$3,934.00
$1 011.00
8.Oxarard
$1,912.90
� 394 -�
$1,212.08
9. Port Hueneme
50,00
$0.00
$0.00
10. Venkwa
$5,245.00
$4130.00
$2,210.00
11. North Urmrc.
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
12. Central Uninc.
$0.00
$0.001
$0 00
13. Coastal Urrnc.
$0.00
$0.001
$0.00
14. Piru Uninc.
$0.00
$0.001
$0.00
Pro osed County Fee
Thousand Square Foot, Thousand Square Foot,
Single Family General Commercial General Industrial
District Residence Unit Development Development
1.O'ai $88.99 $118.65 $23.73
2. Santa Paula $442.88 $590.51 $118.10
3. Filmore $100.95 $134.60 $26.92
4. Moapark $155.45 $207.26 $41.45
5. Simi Valey $39.38 $52.51 $10.50
6. Thousand Oaks $54.98 $73.31 $14.66
7. Camarilo $507.72 $676.96 $135.39
B. �ro $521.11 �.� $138.96
9. Port Hueneme $584.30 $779.07 $155.81
10. Venhxa $414.63 $552.84 $110.57
11. North Urwnc. $547.34 $729.78 $145.96
12. Central Unim. $972.13 $1,296.18 $259.24
13. Coastal Urrirrc. $72.57 $96.76 $19.35
14. Piru Uninc. $156.61 $208.81 $41.76
Total Estimated Reciprocal Fee
Thousand Square Foot,
Thousand Square Foot,
Single Family
General Commercial
General Industrial
District
Residence Unit
Development
Development
1. Ojai
2. Santa Paula
$88.99
$442.88
$118.65
$2313
3. FAmore
$866.95
$590.51
$2 374.60
$118.10
4. Moorpark
$3,155.45
$707.26
$1,676.92
$541.45
5. Simi Va
$295.38
$567.51
$593.31
$142.50
6. Thousand Oaks
$2,874.98
$
$1,148.66
7_ Camarillo
$4 958.72
$4,610.96
$1,146.39
8. Oxnard
9. Port Hueneme
$2 434.01
$584.30
$6,089.20
$1 351.04
10. Ventura
$5,659.63
$779.07
$4,682.84
$155.81
11. North Uninc.
$547.34
$729.78
$2,320.57
$145.96
12. Central MOM
$972.13
$1 -1
$259.24
13. Coastal Uninc.
$72.57
$96.76
$19.35
14. Piru Uninc.
$156.61
$208.81
$41.76
EXHIBIT 2.5 -C
LEGEND
rxorossa Hamm msrnmra
m
x
s
N
V
VENTURA COUNTY TRAFFIC MODEL
PROPOSED TRAFFIC DISTRICTS
Y