My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:080
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:080
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2005 9:48:12 AM
Creation date
3/10/2005 1:13:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/5/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:080
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Vineyard Avenue and be sensitive to speed. The signals will be set so that/fa driver is <br />speeding on Vineyard Avenue, the light will mm red as the driver approaches the signal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Madrdck asked why a stop sign was not placed at Ruby Hill Drive? <br /> <br /> Mr. Knowles reported that developer was conditioned to build a traffic signal at <br />such time as the intersection met State warrants. Staffis still involved in discussions as <br />to whether the City should constrain and/or meter that intersection. He believed a traffic <br />signal provided the greatest flexibility. <br /> <br /> Ms. Madnick stated that she and her neighbors would be pleased to see the traffic <br />light at green during offpeak hours. <br /> <br /> A1 Zimmerman, a Pleasanton resident, provided written communication to <br /> Council indicating his support for the traffic metering during peak hours if it reduces <br /> Vineyard Avenue traffic. He questioned the judgment to unnecessarily delay and annoy <br /> Pleasanton motorists during lightly traveled hours. He believed that during non-peak <br /> hours, the focus should be on Pleasanton motorists and less on non-Pleasanton motorists. <br /> He believed staff should be asked to measure how much traffic on Vineyard Avenue <br /> during non peak hours is being reduced, and to justify why the light must be set to stop <br /> traffic on Vineyard Avenue during lightly traveled hours. He also believed staff should <br /> be asked why the light needed to be red in both directions if traffic is primarily flowing in <br /> one direction during peak hours. He believed there was no other traffic signal in <br /> Pleasanton that was as annoying and unfair as this one. <br /> <br /> Mark Posson, 3036 Chardonnay Drive, provided written communication to <br /> Council requesting that he supports staff's recommendation and any changes in traffic <br /> signal times at Vineyard Avenue and Ruby Hill Drive should be postponed until May <br /> 2004. He believed the signal timing had been instrumental in traffic calming on <br /> Vineyard Avenue, and believed any change in the metering at this time would only <br /> increase traffic and neighborhood noise. Evaluation after the Vineyard realignment <br /> would allow staffto evaluate all measures in place and be available to properly control <br /> traffic. <br /> <br /> Jim and Linda Schwartz, 2929 Amomso Court, provided written communication <br /> to Council requesting that the traffic signal be changed to reflect the actual traffic pattern <br /> on Vineyard Avenue, as well as the time of day. <br /> <br /> Eugene Franck, a Pleasanton resident, provided written communication to <br /> Council stating his concern with the City's traffic strategy regarding Vineyard Avenue. <br /> He mentioned that he lives on Montevino Drive and believes the traffic signal is very <br /> inconvenient as he often takes this mute. He is waiting to see if the activation of the <br /> traffic signal at Montevino will be kept at a consistent strategy. He would expect a <br /> metered, red light for traffic flow on Vineyard Avenue. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 24 01/20/04 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.