1. Adopt a resolution determining that the existing "test" speed control devices on Hillside Drive in Burlingame Hills, and on Blenheim Avenue in the Fair Oaks area, shall remain in place until either the Director of Public Works or the Captain of the Redwood City office of the California Highway Patrol recommends that they be removed.

2. Determine if your Board wishes to consider procedures that would govern the installation of speed control devices.

3. If your Board wishes to consider a procedures governing the installation of speed control devices:
a) direct the Director of Public Works to send a copy of a draft procedures to the homeowners groups and property owners that have expressed interest in the installation of speed control devices in their areas, as well as to the three advisory councils (Fair Oaks, MidCoast and Pescadero), for their review; and
b) report back to your Board on the comments received together with a recommendation on implementing procedures on the installation of speed control devices.

Previous Board Action
Authorized the Department of Public Works to:
a) install speed humps on Hillside Drive and speed dips on Blenheim Avenue;
b) determine their effectiveness in physically reducing the speed of traffic; and
c) evaluate if the devices meet the expectations of property owners and residents in reducing the speed of traffic, as compared to the inconveniences that the devices may create.

Key Facts
I. Data on the speed of vehicles, at or near the location where speed control devices were installed, indicates that there is a slight reduction in the overall speed of traffic in the vicinity of the speed control device.
2. The results of our survey indicate that the property owners and residents, near where the speed control devices have been installed, believe the devices are worthwhile.
3. The California Highway Patrol (CB?) has reviewed the draft procedures and is agreeable to being the 'gatekeeper" for requests for speed control devices as the devices are traffic enforcement tools, and traffic enforcement on streets in the unincorporated area is primarily the responsibility of the CHP.


Discussion
Evaluation of "Test" Speed Control Devices

Blenheim Avenue in the North Fair Oaks area and Hillside Drive in the Burlingame Hills area were the roads selected to have "test" speed control devices installed and evaluated, as the residents on these streets had complained about the speed of traffic to the CHP, and the CHP agreed that these streets would be appropriate test sites. Test speed humps were installed on Hillside Drive in July 2002, and the speed dips were installed on Blenheim Avenue in October 2002.

The Department conducted speed surveys on these streets prior to the installation and after the devices were in and traffic became accustomed to the devices being in place.


The comparison of the speed surveys on the two streets indicates that.
1) the average speed has only slightly decreased (from 32.5 miles per hour (mph) to 30.3 mph on Hillside Drive; and from 22.8 mph to 19.5 mph on Blenheim Avenue);
2) the devices have less impact on the avenge speed of vehicles that are traveling at or below the speed limit (25 miles per hour), and
3) the speed of drivers at higher speeds have been reduced.
4) speed dips slow drivers down more than speed humps.

We also observed that while the effect of the devices diminish as the distance from the devices increase, the overall average speed is slightly reduced in the general area on either side of the device (i.e. approach speed and speeds away from the devices area less).

Property Owners/Resident Surveys
We also surveyed the residents and owners of the adjacent properties near where the devices were installed to obtain their opinion as to the effectiveness of the devices.

The following is a summary of the survey results which indicate that the property owners/residents in the vicinity of the speed control devices at least perceive that traffic speeds have been reduced and that the devices should remain:

                                      Responding*    Responding*     Responding*
	   Street                            That Devices   That Devices    That Devices
	   Surveyed         Response Rate*   Are Effective  Should Remain   Should Be
                                                     In Place        Removed
			 Hillside Drive     60.7%           76.5%           82.4%          17.6%
			 Blenheim           30.3%           94.6%           97.3%           2.7%

The response rate on the two streets is markedly different. However, Hillside Drive is a single family residential area, and Blenheim Avenue is zoned for multifamily units but has a combination of single family homes and tenant occupied apartments. The lower rate of response on Blenheim Avenue may be attributed to the lower owner occupied property. However, we believe, that there is still a sufficient response to conclude that the residents are in favor of leaving the devices in place.

Procedure to Determine if Speed Control Devices Should be Installed. The Department, with the aid of the CHIP, concurrently developed the attached draft procedures that can be used to determine if speed control devices should be installed. We are asking your Board to determine if you wish to consider procedures; and if so, then we are recommending that you direct us to send copies of the procedures to the homeowner associations and property owners that have asked, since your Board authorized the installation of the "test" devices, that speed be controlled on theft streets, and to the three advisory councils; and ask for their input on the proposed procedures. Our past experience with traffic circles and chicanes in the Fair Oaks area, and the review of other cities' standards for installing traffic control devices, indicate that not everyone is in favor of the installation of these devices, and establishing procedures helps everyone understand the conditions that have to be met before speed control devices will be considered or installed.


We anticipate that it will take approximately two months before we would return with a recommendation to your Board as some homeowner associations and advisory councils only meet once a month, and our intent is to provided sufficient time for them to consider the draft and provide their comments.

Vision Alignment
We believe our recommendation is consistent with Shared Vision Commitment of a "responsive, effective and collaborative government," as the testing and installation of the speed control devices and the development of the draft procedure was a collaborative effort' of both the County and the CHP.

Fiscal Impact
We estimate that it cost approximately $20,000 to design, install, evaluate and conduct the property owner surveys associated with the two "test" speed control devices. The cost of the "test' 'devices and staff time was paid for with Road Funds.

We believe the cost of future speed control devices will be in the range of $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the particular configuration of a street and the time that may be involved in surveying the property owners and responding to questions.

We also believe that if your Board approves of a criteria, that there may initially be a large number of requests for the devices based on past correspondence that we and the CHP has received. We can evaluate limiting the number of speed control devices that will be allowed each year, or set a time each year when requests for speed control devices need to be received by the CHP in order that devices can be prioritized based on the input from the CHP, Your Board may also want to consider our developing an application fee to offset at least the cost of the traffic study necessary to determine if a device is warranted. Any County costs associated with evaluating or constructing additional speed control devices is proposed to be paid for with Road Funds. There is no impact to the General Fund.

A form of resolution has been approved by County Counsel.

A copy of this report has been sent to the City Council of the City of Burlingame, City of Burlingame Department of Public Works, representatives of the residents on Hillside Drive and Blenheim Avenue, and to the three advisory councils and we have notified them of when this item is tentatively scheduled to be heard by your Board

Neil R. Cullen
Director of Public Works

The Department of Public Works considers speed humps/dips as traffic enforcement tools as theft purpose is to encourage motorists to travel at or below the prima facie speed limit in residential areas.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has primary responsibility for the enforcing the provision of the California Vehicle Code on streets in the unincorporated areas of the County and any request for the installation of the speed hump/dip must first be approved by the CHP

The Department of Public Works (DPW) will not recommend that speed humps/dips be installed on roads considered by the Department as arterial streets, arterial streets in residential areas, or rural type roads where the basic speed law as provided by Section 22350 of the California Vehicle Code establishes the speed limit for the road. Some examples of these types of roads include: Edgewood Road, Alameda de las Pulgas, Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, and Pescadero Creek Road. Procedures to be followed.

A. Request for Speed Control Device
A resident or neighborhood association or a group of neighbors concerned about a neighborhood speeding problem must submit a letter of request to the California Highway Patrol identifying the location of the speeding problem, and indicating the cause of the problem (i.e. cut-through traffic, neighborhood traffic, specific individuals, etc.). The letter must be signed by owners of at least 51% of the properties in a given block, or 5 1% of the tenants for rental property on a block before the CHP will consider the request of the owners or tenants. A contact person must be identified in the letter.

B. CHP Field Check
The CHP will conduct a field check, observing the speed of traffic as described in the request by the owners/residents, to determine if further study is warranted, The CHP will confirm in writing that they believe that a speeding problem exists that can be ameliorated by the installation of a speed hump/dip, and recommend location(s) for said device( The CHP will also comment if they believe the installation of the speed hump/dip will divert traffic to adjacent parallel streets.

C. Investigation by the Department of Public Works
I. DPW will conduct speed surveys on the length of street that has been referred to DPW by the CHP to determine if 20% of the traffic is traveling at least 5 miles per hour (mph) over the prima facie speed limit for the area. No further action will be taken by DPW if it is determined that less than 20% of the traffic is traveling at least 5 mph over the prima facie speed limit. Speed humps will be considered for areas where more than 20% of the traffic is traveling 5 mph over the prima facie speed limit, and speed dips will be considered where more that 20% for the traffic is traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit.

2. DPW will also evaluate if there is a high probability that the traffic will be diverted to other streets if speed humps/dips are installed. Areas where traffic diversion may occur will be discussed with the CHIP before any recommendation is made. DPW will contact the property owners on the adjacent street(s) to make them aware of the proposed installation of the speed humps/dips and the possibility that traffic may be diverted to their street. Property owners will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed installation of the speed humps/dips and DPW and the CHP will take the comments/opinions, received into consideration when making a recommendation to install speed humps/dips.

3. No more than one request for a speed hump/dip on a given block of a street will be considered by the CHP in any 15-month period. Subsequent requests will require a second dated petition as described above in Section A together with supporting data as to why the applicant believes the condition in their area has changed to a point where speed humps/dips are warranted.

4. The Department, when a speed hump/dip is recommended, will also recommend a location to the contact person arid the contact person shall be responsible for obtaining agreement of the adjacent property owners. The Department will not recommend that a speed hump/dip be installed:
a) unless the adjacent property owners are in agreement as evidenced in writing; or
b) where an adjacent property owner has objected to the installation of the speed hump/dip in writing and where no other suitable location is found, the majority of the property owners or residents on the block under consideration for a speed hump/dip indicate in writing that they consider that the overriding circumstances justifies the installation of the speed hump/dip as proposed, and requests the County to move forward with the installation of the device.

5. The Board of Supervisors will consider the recommendations of DPW and the CHP at a regular scheduled Board meeting and DPW will notify the property owners on the street, where a speed hump/dip is proposed of said meeting. The installation of the speed hump/dip will be approved by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. ft Removal of Speed Humps/Dips

DPW will maintain speed humps/dips that are installed. Speed humps/dips will not be removed unless a subsequent resolution directing the removal of the speed hump/dip is approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Board will consider the recommendation of the CHP in making its decision to remove a speed hump/dip.