Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Knowles noted that there are changing circumstances. The hours of 7:15 a.m. <br />to 8:15 a.m. were the only times staff ran the three seconds per green program because it <br />was when the Ruby Hill residents needed to take their children to school, which resulted <br />in a backup at the Montevino stop sign. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky noted that this backup also impacted the Vineyard Corridor <br />residents. <br /> <br /> Mr. Knowles reported that staffis within weeks of having the traffic signal ready <br />at Montevino Drive. Once the traffic signal is functioning, he believed the hours of 7:15 <br />a.m. to 8:15 a.m. would not be critical anymore because the backup would not be <br />occurring. He indicated that strict metering could be discontinued immediately from the <br />hours of 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and when the Montevino traffic signal is operating, the <br />metering could be relaxed but go for a longer period of time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if Vineyard Avenue was considered an arterial street in the <br />General Plan? <br /> <br /> Ms. Knowles said yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky noted that Vineyard Avenue was meant to carry traffic and not be a <br />residential street. <br /> <br /> As previously discussed, Mr. Knowles pointed out that the reason for pushing this <br />traffic calming plan was so that the City would not have a situation similar to the <br /> situation at Foothill Road, south at Bemal Avenue. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman mentioned that her neighborhood really appreciates the traffic <br /> calming. <br /> <br /> Vice Mayor Ayala opened the meeting for public comments. <br /> <br /> Deborah Madnick, 3095 Crestablanca Drive, mentioned that she lives near the <br /> intersection of Montevino Drive and Vineyard Avenue. She concurred with Council's <br /> comments and suggestions for the metering of the Vineyard Avenue and Ruby Hill Drive <br /> traffic signal during non-peak hours. She wondered if the traffic signal at Montevino <br /> Drive would be subject to the same conditions as Ruby Hill Drive. <br /> <br /> Mr. Knowles pointed out that the purpose of the traffic signal on Vineyard <br /> Avenue at Ruby Hill Drive was to delay and discourage through traffic from using <br /> Vineyard Avenue. It was not to give a green light to Ruby Hill residents. The City has <br /> operated the light ever since it was turned on and Ruby Hill residents have never in any <br /> way influenced how the signal is operated. He mentioned that the traffic signal plans for <br /> Montevino Drive would be completely different from any other signal in the City. <br /> Because staffis not planning on metering that traffic signal, it will rest in green on <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 23 01/20/04 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />