CCMIN051804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Tahmadge Steele, 2872 Gray Fox Court, said that traffic today is the same as it was when he moved to Pleasanton, and he does not see any difference. He noted that the residents were promised a number of things when the Ruby Hill development was approved. The residents were promised an additional bridge across the Bemal Creek, a causeway type of road to Ruby Hills, attractive landscaping along Vineyard Avenue, signals in place of stop signs at Vineyard Avenue and Valley Avenue as well as at Montevino Drive and Valley Avenue, and realignment of Vineyard Avenue to mitigate the increased traffic of Ruby Hills. He noted that there is an increase in traffic congestion rather than reduced traffic congestion on Vineyard Avenue, and a loss of a lane on Vineyard Avenue. He complained about the long duration of the traffic signal located at Vineyard Avenue and Bernal Avenue. He did not believe the radar signs were effective and he was unhappy with the management of the entire Vineyard Avenue corridor. He was against the installation of speed humps on Crellin Road and would prefer a stop sign at Montevino Drive. John Smyth, 828 Crellin Road, was against speed lumps but he was in favor of it if it calmed traffic. With the way the speed lumps are being installed, he believed traffic would be diverted to other streets. At the initial neighborhood meeting held in February 2004, residents from Arbor Drive were complaining about the speed on their street, which he believed would double with the installation of speed humps on Crellin Road. At this same meeting, staff listened to the concerns of the residents and formed a Steering Committee for future meetings of which he was a member. He was never notified of future meetings and, therefore, was never aware of the speed and volume data that was subsequently presented. He challenged the validity of the petitions as the Traffic Calming Program stated that the City would not fund it unless the homeowners participated, and with 1200 vehicles per day on Crellin Road, residents would be responsible for 25 percent of the cost. Ilse M. Dawe, 880 Crellin Road, believed the fn'st survey was conducted under false pretenses. The residents were never informed that they might have to pay for the cost of installing the speed lumps. The residents were coaxed into accepting speed lumps in three separate areas. She believed the percentage of speeding vehicles was higher for eastbound traffic traveling up the hill than the westbound traffic traveling down the hill. She noted that there has been a significant amount of turnover in the number of homes being sold since the middle of 2002. She did not believe that speed lumps are an effective means of controlling speed, and do little or nothing to discourage cut-through traffic. If the speed lumps were installed, she asked what the projected noise level would be for cars, SUVs and heavier vehicles. She did not understand how the spell lumps could be removed or how they are attached to the surface of the road. She suggested installing a 25 mph speed limit sign at the entrance of Crellin Road and Touriga Drive. Based upon her conversation with staff, it was her understanding that the speed lumps would be a Pilot Program and at no cost to the residents. She asked Council to guarantee the residents that they would not be billed later for the cost of installing the speed lumps. Laura Davidson, 1060 Crellin Road, indicated that she was one of two people involved in obtaining signatures for the petitions. She assured Council that she explained Pleasanton City Council 10 05/18/04 Minutes