Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Brentwood staff seeks to replace speed‑hump policy with combined traffic‑calming rules

Brentwood City Commission · January 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff proposed a combined traffic‑calming and speed‑hump policy that narrows voting distances, sets separation between devices, clarifies HOA/resident petition paths, and adjusts votes/timeframes; commissioners pressed for clear, readable language and staff interpretation guidance.

City staff presented a proposed repeal of the earlier speed‑hump policy and a consolidated traffic‑calming policy intended to clarify procedures for neighborhood‑initiated traffic calming.

Key changes explained by staff (Speaker 1): the policy would apply only to public streets; minimum separation between devices would be 300 feet and maximum 600 feet; separate votes would be required for each physical improvement (for example, each hump or table), and the initial process would look for 50% support within a 600‑foot radius (reduced from the prior 1,000‑foot radius). The voting period for the physical improvement would be 45 days (up from 30) with a potential extension of up to 30 days in special cases. Staff also proposed conducting two mailings to increase petition response rates and said the city would handle petition distribution and collection.

On cost sharing, staff said typical practice remains: speed humps would require a two‑thirds resident cost share while speed tables (on collector streets) would be city‑funded. Commissioners asked how to interpret 'substantially similar' for repeated petitions and whether a subsequent request in a different area would be allowed; staff said that determining 'substantially similar' will require staff judgment and that the policy would set a 24‑month waiting period for substantially similar subsequent requests, with flexibility when locations are demonstrably different.

Commissioners asked staff to refine language so the rule reads clearly to residents; staff said they will incorporate suggested clarifications and could bring a polished version back for the next meeting or postpone action if needed.