Staff presented the results of a speed‑hump survey conducted after the town’s neighborhood traffic‑management program installed temporary speed humps. Robert and Gabriela Ruiz, the associate engineer, summarized street‑level results drawn from about 190 total responses (approximately 150 from Atherton residents) and recommended removal, retention, relocation or modification of temporary humps depending on resident sentiment and safety considerations.

Gabriela said some streets (for example, Glenwood and Maple) showed majority resident support for retaining or making humps permanent; other main-route segments such as portions of Selby and Stockbridge drew majority requests for removal. The staff team recommended further resident outreach at affected streets and use of a more gradual insert piece to reduce the fatigue/jarring effect of off‑the‑shelf temporary plastic humps.

Committee members pressed for objective evaluation of effectiveness. The police chief (unnamed in the transcript) and staff said the town uses a standard 7‑day automated speed/count study and collision history to evaluate whether a true speeding problem exists; staff said many citizen speed complaints did not show a speed problem on those short studies. Residents countered that humps create noise and vehicle vibration, especially when placed adjacent to bedroom windows, and argued humps should be sited where measured speeding or cut‑through traffic occurs.

After discussion, the committee voted to proceed with a focused outreach and restudy for Glenwood to examine adding a second hump (committee recorded a voice vote in favor), directed staff to remove selected humps where residents preferred removal, and to retain or consider lower‑profile permanent designs or raised crosswalks near schools during paving projects. Staff said removals could be implemented quickly, but any relocations or permanent installations would require resident outreach and possible inclusion in future paving schedules.