Buellton council debates speed-hump policy, asks staff for data and alternatives

The Buellton City Council spent more than two hours Tuesday reviewing whether to adopt a policy permitting speed humps on city streets and what data or alternatives would be needed before any installation.

City Manager Scott Wolf presented Caltrans’ traffic-calming guidance, which recommends speed humps primarily on “local” streets rather than collector streets because of concerns about average daily traffic, street width, grades and sight distance. Wolf said the typical guidelines list thresholds such as streets wider than 40 feet, average daily trips above about 2,500 and grades above roughly 8% as circumstances that make humps inappropriate. He also noted that Solvang and Santa Barbara County have formal standards and that the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA) now requires an engineer’s review and a council resolution if humps are installed to preserve insurance coverage.

Why it matters: Councilmembers and residents raised speeding and safety concerns near the dog park, on Second Street and in several neighborhoods. Installing humps on the wrong class of street can raise safety and emergency-response issues and can shift traffic and noise to nearby streets, Wolf said. Several councilmembers stressed the need for alternatives, more data and sheriff involvement before any policy or installations.

Key details: Wolf summarized technical and procedural constraints from the traffic-calming guide and local practice: speed humps (12 feet long, about 3.5 inches high) are distinct from parking-lot speed bumps; they are intended for mid-block placement; and emergency-service review is required because humps can affect response times. Wolf said Rancho de Maria already has humps but that speeding complaints there persist, raising questions about long‑term effectiveness. He also described the risk that 'squeezing the balloon' in one street can push traffic to others.

Council reaction and next steps: Council members expressed differing views. Council Member Sanchez, Council Member Hornick and Vice Mayor Lewis said they prefer enforcement and temporary measures—such as more frequent deployment of the city’s speed trailer and additional sheriff presence—before pursuing permanent humps. Several members asked staff to consider alternatives mentioned in the Caltrans guide, including signage, lane narrowing (chokers), rumble strips and selective striping.

Council did not adopt a formal policy or resolution and gave these directions to staff: collect localized speed and ADT (average daily traffic) data (using the speed trailer and/or consultant counts), consult the city engineer and public-safety partners (sheriff, fire/EMS) on impacts and standards, and, if warranted, return with draft criteria and a recommended policy for Council consideration. Staff said consultants for the circulation-element update could be asked to include targeted studies but that amending that scope will cost more and take time.

Resident comments and context: Council and staff noted that complaints so far have been informal (town-hall mentions and a few resident contacts) rather than formal petitions; the county guidance cited in the discussion suggested petitions of roughly 75% of affected residents where used. Council members emphasized clear communication with residents about the difference between unsafe acceleration/behavior and measured speeding.

Ending: Staff said it will coordinate with the city engineer and sheriff and return with more precise data, costs and draft policy language if Council wants to proceed. No formal action was taken at the meeting.