CCMIN020403 - Laserfiche WebLink

medians or trees in the middle and there are trees close to the single lane, people will ngt pass. With regard to the other roundabouts planned for Vineyard, she could accept the one at Touriga but did not see any reason for the one at Sauterne because there is not enough traffic coming out of there. The road could be narrowed, but another roundabout is not justified. LuAnn Elliott, 2902 Victoria Meadow Court, opposed a traffic signal at Montevino. She said many people do not stop at the existing stop sign because she thought they were trying to be the first to reach the point where the two lanes narrow to one. She said people drive over the speed limit already and if they see a green light they will go even faster. She was afraid there would be more accidents. She liked some of the other traffic calming suggestions, however she was confused by the presentation. At the beginning, staff was talking about getting traffic off Vineyard and onto Stanley Boulevard. Then it there was reference to double turning lanes and traffic signals to move the traffic faster. She asked why move traffic faster when the idea was to get it off Vineyard. Mark Posson, 3036 Chardonnay Drive, said he generally supported the staff recommendations. Mr. Knowles has done an excellent job in presenting alternatives and he felt this was bringing Pleasanton together. The ultimate solution will be a nice landscaped roadway which is consistent from Bernal to Ruby Hill. People will be able to use the old Vineyard trail to ride bikes from the central part of the City to Ruby Hill. The question of one lane eastbound is very valid. As one looks at the pipeline construction where it has constricted Vineyard to one lane, he has not seen many backups in that section. He thinks there has been some traffic calming as a result of that construction. He agreed with trying one lane in both directions. He referred to the original traffic calming elements, which included landscaping of Sauterne Way. The City wanted to try striping prior to putting in the landscape, even though the residents prefer'red the landscaping. He quoted from the General Plan, Circulation Element 4.1 regarding landscaping and 5.5 regarding neighborhood character. He said the striping is not consistent with the neighborhood character and is unsightly. He asked Council to direct staff to prepare a landscape design for Sauterne. He pledged $1,000 towards the landscaping for Sauteme. Iyad (Ed) Natour, 701 Montevino Drive, opposed the traffic signal at Montevino. It would increase noise and cause light pollution to the neighborhood. He believed the signal would contribute to an increase in traffic volume and speed. Some argue that the light is needed to improve the safety of children crossing the street. He did not agree because around town there are many traffic signals that still have crossing guards too. He lives at the comer of Montevino and Vineyard. Assuming the signal favors traffic on Vineyard, he was concerned that drivers turning onto Montevino from Vineyard will not stop when he is trying to leave his driveway. With a stop sign, people stop and he has a chance to pull out. He understands the concerns of the Ruby Hill residents, but he felt it was because of cut-through traffic. He urged Council to proceed with the traffic signal at Ruby Hill to minimize cut-through traffic. He urged Mr. Knowles not to be generous for people driving westbound. Sofia Garcia, 708 Montevino Drive, agreed the four-way stop is a safety issue. There were many accidents before the stop signs were installed and her kids have had difficulty crossing the street. However, she did not think a traffic signal is the answer. She felt people will speed through the intersection and it will increase noise, traffic, speed, everything. The big Pleasanton City Council 21 02/04/03 Minutes