In December 2001 community members, responsible for Mobile Home Park management, asked City Council to study the feasibility of having DPS provide traffic enforcement services within mobile home parks (private property). Several mobile home park managers believe that enforcement will improve traffic safety within their communities. This study was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness, the need for this approach, the legal implications, and the fiscal impact and to make a recommendation on whether or not implementation is appropriate and if so, how it will be done.

At the request of several park owners who were concerned with traffic safety in their mobile home parks Council directed staff to study the issue of having DPS provide regular traffic enforcement patrols.

This study addresses the following items:

Land Use & Transportation BP.C2.a, Public Safety officers should cite bicyclists or motorist in a manner that will promote greater education and safety, such as Public Safety's Juvenile Traffic Diversion Program.

Police Services Sub Element Goal, 4.1A.5 Facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles.

Streets in mobile home parks are private property and are, therefore, not subject to many of the provisions regarding traffic movement legislated in the California Vehicle Code. Violations such as speeding, stop sign and improper turning are not regulated. Many mobile home parks have lease agreements to regulate tenant behavior, however these are only enforceable as civil matters and have no impact on non-residents. However, the City, by resolution or ordinance, may authorize traffic enforcement on mobile home park private roads pursuant to California Vehicle Code 21107.7 under certain conditions. This requires a petition by majority vote of owners to ask Council to adopt an ordinance allowing for such enforcement. The City must hold a public hearing and provide written notice 10 days prior to commencement of any enforcement to all owners in the development. In addition, signs of specified dimension and wording must be placed at all entrances of all parks, indicating that the roads are subject to enforcement of the provisions of the Vehicle Code.

Staff met with representatives from various mobile home parks to discuss their concerns. The most common complaints were speeding and stop sign violations. All park owners/managers believe enforcement is necessary, and that their residents would have mixed reactions to the notion of police traffic enforcement within the park. Since it is private property, there is a degree of expected privacy and many don’t believe there is a significant problem. It is believed that prior education efforts have not been successful in changing behaviors long term, since no enforcement follows. Although informal polls were conducted to determine if there was sufficient resident interest a formal poll must be accomplished before an ordinance or resolution is adopted. It is also important to note that authorization must be taken on a park-by-park basis, which could result in some parks receiving enforcement and others not.

Historical data was checked for the period of January 2000- April 2002 to see if there were a significant number of reported accidents on mobile home park properties. There was no record of injury accidents on any of the properties. It should be noted that since DPS only investigates private property collisions involving major injuries, it is possible that there are other collisions, which did not show up in the search since they did not involve major or serious injuries or because they were not reported. Because the vehicle code is unenforceable on private property, no citation or traffic complaint history exists.

Sunnyvale Traffic Engineering conducted three speed surveys at two different mobile home parks (Willow Ranch and Avenida Carlos), each with a posted speed of 15mph. Traffic Engineering studied a "typical" mobile home park with respect to size and number of dwelling units. A single mobile home park that was representative of the average size of a park in Sunnyvale was analyzed in detail to provide a "unit cost." Unit costs are given both for implementation by City forces or by the private sector with City maintenance for providing engineering and improvements necessary to implement roadway standards that would support traffic enforcement by the Department of Public Safety.

• Location analysis for new speed limit signs.
• Consistency assessment and adherence to standards for roadway signs and markings (including non-standard device removal).
• Assessment of visibility and safety at interior park intersections.
• Location analysis for additional centerline striping to reduce speeds.
• Signs at the entrance to each park warning drivers that the California Vehicle Code is enforced on the roads of the park.
• Ongoing analysis to support court-recognized speed limits.

The estimated number of hours needed for studying the intersections and conducting initial radar surveys is 205 hours. Preparation of designs/work orders to modify roadway features to gain compliance with speed enforcement law would require an additional 30 hours, for a total initial cost of approximately $7,300 for each park. An additional 30 hours every five years would be required to update radar surveys at each park. DPW Field Services time and costs are estimated at 390 hours per park for removal of non-standard signs and striping, and installation of standard control devices, at an estimated cost of $16,600. Ongoing annual maintenance is estimated at $21,420 per year.

For City staff to conduct this work for all mobile home parks in Sunnyvale would represent a significant allocation of resources. Neither the Traffic Engineering Division nor the DPW Field Services Division would be able to absorb this workload with existing resources. Implementation of sign and striping changes by the Field Services Division would require deferral of a significant amount of routine public roadway maintenance. Therefore, staff would recommend that these services be contracted out.

Estimates received from a private traffic engineering firm and review of recent bid tabulations for sign and striping work put the estimated cost for studying, signing and striping a typical mobile home park by the private sector as follows:

Speeding is the major concern for mobile home park owners. If traffic enforcement services are offered, there might be an expectation of dedicated enforcement in the parks. The two options that exist if enforcement were offered are:

1. DPS provides regular dedicated traffic enforcement.
2. DPS offers enforcement as part of routine patrol duties.

If dedicated services were to occur, that would require additional resources and would be the most costly option. Although it would be necessary to inform mobile home parks that any service provided would be made part of routine patrol, and therefore, would be inconsistent due to prioritization. Staff is concerned that even with such a caveat, the park owners and residents would expect an increased service level and this would not be achievable by DPS without the addition of resources dedicated to traffic enforcement.

Although the City of Sunnyvale does not currently have many private corporate campuses with individual streets that would be covered by 21107.7 CVC, a sampling of existing campuses was surveyed to see if they would be interested in this service. Currently the businesses are not interested in traffic enforcement on campus, however, if the ordinance is adopted, views may change. New commercial development and post implementation developments may also change the current state of mind.

In a similar fashion as San Jose, Council can recommend that a pilot project, one year in length, be undertaken to provide traffic enforcement at one park. The enforcement effort would be limited to routine patrol with complaint tracking and targeted enforcement efforts when needed. The selection of the park to be used in the project will be determined by DPS, Traffic Engineering and the Mobile Home Park Owners. Once selected, the park owners will be responsible for conducting a formal poll to determine if the statutorily required majority of residents support the effort. Council will need to adopt a resolution or ordinance providing for traffic enforcement on private roads, specifically at the mobile home park chosen by the group. The resolution must state the following statutory findings:

1. The roads are privately owned and maintained that are not generally held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel, and
2. By reason of their proximity to or connection with highways, the interests of any residents residing along the roads and the motoring public will best be served by application of the provisions of this code to those roads.
3. No ordinance or resolution shall be enacted unless there is first filed with the city a petition requesting it by a majority of the owners of any privately owned and maintained road, or by at least a majority of the board of directors of a common interest development, as defined by Civil Code Section 1351, that is responsible for maintaining the road, and without a public hearing thereon and 10 days prior written notice to all owners of the road or all of the owners in the development.

Staff believes that providing traffic enforcement in mobile home parks is possible but there hasn’t been a collision/complaint history to support the need. Mobile Home Park Traffic Enforcement would be a new service level and will come with a significant cost for traffic engineering and public safety. Funds must be allocated from the General Fund. Since there is no historical data to base service level impacts on, the costs would best be determined by using a pilot project to track actual personnel and equipment commitments. Additionally, cost apportionment for the project would need to be determined so that it is clear whom will pay for improvements and personnel costs.

If the City chooses to implement such a program, enforcement can be conducted one of two ways.

1. First, proactive enforcement by Public Safety with an estimate of thirty dedicated hours per week. This would necessitate the addition of a traffic officer and necessary support. This would be the most expensive option, expected to run in excess of $200,000 per year.
2. A second option would be to respond to calls for service by residents and occasionally patrol the parks as part of routine patrol. Based on the results from the speed survey and the City of San Jose’s pilot project, speeding is more of a perception than an actual traffic concern. Resident education on traffic safety and use of the City’s speed trailer may assist in the reduction of traffic concerns.

Other calming measures can be employed as indicated. In either case, if it is determined to continue in the direction of enforcement, it would be highly recommended that we approach the issue using a pilot project to best determine actual impacts on service levels, the related costs, outcomes and community reaction.

Staff recommends Alternative 1.