COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Department of Public Works

DATE:

October 19, 2004

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 26, 2004

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT:

Approval of the Installation of Speed Humps on Various County Maintained Roads

Recommendation

Adopt resolutions authorizing the Director of Public Works to install speed humps on the following listed County maintained roads, once the administrative fees have been paid as required by the “Procedures for the Installation of Speed Humps/Dips on County Maintained Roads” dated October 1, 2003:

1.

Three (3) speed humps on Harte Street between Portola Avenue and Crescent Street - Montara;

2.

Three (3) speed humps on Orange Avenue between Valparaiso Avenue and Croner Avenue - West Menlo Park;

3.

Three (3) speed humps on Santa Clara Avenue between Woodside Road and West Selby Lane - Sequoia Tract;

4.

Three (3) speed humps on Third Street between Farallone Avenue and Le Conte Avenue - Montara; and

5.

Two (2) speed humps on Country Club Drive between Constitution Way and Dorado Way - South San Francisco.

Previous Board Action

Adopted Resolution No. 066308 on October 21, 2003, which approved the “Procedures for the Installation of Speed Humps/Dips on County Maintained Roads” dated October 1, 2003 (Procedures).

Key Facts

1.

The majority of the property owners on the above described streets petitioned the Department to install traffic control devices as required by the Procedures, and the speed surveys conducted by the Department confirmed that speed humps are warranted based on the criteria in the adopted Procedures.

2.

The California Highway Patrol concurs in the installation of the speed humps on the above listed streets

Discussion

We solicited requests for speed humps/dips from the municipal advisory councils, community associations and homeowners groups throughout the County, and by contacting residents that had previously requested the installation of traffic control devices on their streets while we were evaluating speed humps/dips and developing the Procedures.

We received eleven (11) requests representing ten (10) different streets, and conducted traffic surveys on these streets. Four (4) of the streets (Marine Boulevard in Moss Beach, Palo Alto Way and Vine Street, West Menlo Park area, and Randall Road, San Mateo Highlands) did not meet the speed criteria established in the Procedures. Six (6) streets met the speed criteria established in the Procedures - the five streets listed above, and Alta Vista Drive.

Staff worked closely with the project proponents for the five qualified streets referenced above to determine the best locations for the speed humps, and developed draft plans based on standard traffic calming parameters. Meeting notices were then sent to all property owners within the area deemed to be immediately impacted by speed humps, and the draft plans were presented at neighborhood meetings along with copies of our traffic surveys. The plans were adjusted to reflect the neighborhood’s observations of traffic conditions, and to place the proposed speed humps in line with or near side property lines.

The speed data collected on Country Club Drive meets the criteria for constructing speed dips in lieu of speed humps (20% of traffic exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or more). However, we believe that speed dips would not be appropriate on Country Club Drive due to the surface drainage facilities and characteristics of the area.

We also conducted baseline traffic surveys on the roads that parallel these streets and will use these surveys to determine if motorists divert onto the adjacent streets as a result of speed hump installation.

We believe the installation of speed humps is exempt from the requirements for preparation of an EIR under Section 15301(C) Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act and we have filed a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.

The Planning and Building Division has issued Coastal Development Permit Exemptions for speed hump construction on Harte Street and Third Street, as these two streets are located in the Coastal Zone.

We estimate that construction of speed humps will take approximately two (2) days per street and will have the work done either by our Road Maintenance Staff or by independent contract.

Alta Vista Drive

Alta Vista Drive qualifies for traffic control devices, but we have not received the requisite petition signed by a majority of the property owners requesting that traffic calming devices be installed. We will reconsider Alta Vista Drive when the program is advertised again if we receive a petition.

Payment of Administrative Fees

Not all of the administrative fees as required by the Procedures have been paid as of the writing of this report. Therefore, we have drafted a form of resolution that includes your Board’s approval of the proposed speed humps, but does not authorize the installation of the devices on a specific street until the fees have been paid.

Vision Alignment

We believe our recommendation is consistent with the Shared Vision Commitment to “ensure basic health and safety of all, ” and Goal Number 7 to “maintain and enhance the public safety of all residents and visitors,” as the installation of the speed humps is intended to reduce traffic speeds to acceptable levels on these residential streets.

Fiscal Impact

The cost of installing the fourteen (14) speed humps is estimated at $52,000. The cost is partially offset by the $400 per speed hump fee ($5,600 total) which has been or will be paid by the project proponents prior to the installation of the speed humps. The net cost of installing the speed hump is proposed to be financed with Road Funds. There is no impact to the General Fund.

We have notified the residents on the five streets, as provided by the Procedures, of the meeting where your Board will consider our recommendation to install the speed humps. We have also sent a copy of our staff report to the fire protection agencies that serve the areas where speed humps are proposed, and to the nearby cities - Atherton, Menlo Park, Redwood City and South San Francisco. We will report any comments that we receive from the property owners, the fire protection agencies or the cities.

Forms of resolution have been approved by County Counsel.