|
Jack Witthaus, Transportation and Traffic Manager, presented the staff report.
Councilmember Howe asked staff to send an email to Council later in the week with the cost per year for maintenance of the traffic calming measures and landscaping circle beginning with the year the project was approved.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 8:04 p.m.
Steve Gospe stated his support of additional traffic calming on Canary Drive.
John Depew stated his support of additional traffic calming on Canary Drive. He noted there are 19 homes directly affected by the excessive speed, and 19 responses were in favor of an additional speed hump. Councilmember Moylan asked Mr. Depew on what basis did he feel an additional speed hump was necessary, given that traffic speeds are down 23% and below the limit for traffic calming. Mr. Depew stated that the speed collection equipment is not set in areas where speeding occurs and there are limitations in the equipment used (ability to collect a maximum speed).
Councilmember Moylan confirmed with Mr. Depew that he feels staff has set an inappropriate threshold for when a neighborhood needs traffic calming. Councilmember Moylan asked Mr. Depew what his suggestion was for traffic calming data collection. Mr. Depew stated that 25 miles an hour is acceptable for neighborhoods, and that the speeds on Canary seem faster.
Councilmember Hamilton explained to Mr. Depew that Council did not approve an additional speed hump. Mr. Depew stated that the neighborhood reviewed the tape and a temporary speed hump was suggested. There was consensus among the neighborhood for this temporary correction. Councilmember Hamilton stated she did not believe Council was in favor of a temporary speed hump,
Councilmember Hamilton stated that there was not a consensus with the survey administered in February 2006 (19 in favor of a speed hump, 19 for no additional actions, and 2 for installation of bulb outs). Mr. Depew stated there clearly is a consensus for people wanting some type of traffic calming action.
Councilmember Hamilton noted for the record that an additional survey was completed in 2004 (same number of ballots mailed out) which received a higher rate of return with 60% of the residents not in favor of further traffic calming on Canary Drive.
Erez Avidan-Antonir spoke in favor of traffic calming for the safety of his children, and stated the speed hump has made a difference, but an additional one is needed. Councilmember Howe asked Mr. Avidan-Antonir if an additional speed hump were put in place, would he allow his children to cross the street to the park. Mr. Avidan-Antonir stated his house is located between the speed hump and the circle, which is the area that receives the highest speed as drivers accelerate from the speed hump to the circle (about 120 yards). He stated if it is possible to enforce 25 miles per hour, he would be much less restrictive with his children.
Karen Owyeung stated her house is located between the speed hump and the circle and confirmed that people do speed after going over the speed hump. She stated the original proposal was for three speed humps, but because they needed neighborhood consensus, they went with a more conservative approach. She stated speeding is reduced, but an additional hump would make a big difference. They had several meetings with the Traffic Department and were given a limited number of options. Neighbors asked if any of the options would be an effective solution and they were told that the long-term costs to the City for maintenance would exceed the cost for an additional speed hump, and the options and their effectiveness are untested.
Ms. Owyeung stated the neighborhood reviewed the Council Meeting tape and that a motion was made to add an additional speed hump. She stated that this motion failed and a friendly amendment was made by Councilmember Howe for the traffic department to creatively problem solve this issue, and if a temporary speed hump was the agreed upon outcome, the expense was to be limited.
Ms. Owyeung stated that when the neighborhood met with the Traffic Department, the speed hump was not included as an option.
Steve Ganz stated he lives near the speed circle, on Loch Lomond Court and has witnessed drivers gaining acceleration after the speed hump. Councilmember Moylan stated that the Council received three emails from residents on Loch Lomond that oppose further traffic calming. Mr. Ganz stated he was speaking for himself, not the residents of Loch Lomond Court.
William Owyeung stated he is aware of drivers blowing their tires due to excessive speeds at the turning circle, and is concerned for the safety of his children. He would like to see the speed hump mandated, not voted on, due to the issue of safety.
Alexander Pesic, Canary Drive resident, spoke against additional speed humps and stated his concerns about damage to his car.
Scott Chapman stated his concerns for his children who ride their bikes in the neighborhood. Mr. Chapman stated that drivers increase their speeds after they go over the speed hump.
Jordan DuVal stated he is in favor of an additional speed hump and is concerned for the safety of his children. He stated the initial traffic calming measures were under budget; therefore, there should be funds available to assist with additional calming measures. He stated the neighborhood will raise the additional amount of funds needed for an additional speed hump.
Councilmember Hamilton asked staff about the cost of a speed hump and Manager Witthaus stated it was about $12,000, with an annual maintenance cost of approximately $1,000 a year.
Councilmember Hamilton asked Mr. DuVal what he thought would be an acceptable compromise, and Mr. DuVal stated that a temporary hump would address the issues from all parties.
Mary Depew presented Council with an aerial photograph of the area and highlighted the distance between the current hump and a temporary hump. She stated that of the 19 homes surveyed for additional traffic calming, 12 responded (63%) in favor of additional calming measures.
No one else wished to speak and Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at
8:47 p.m.
Councilmember Spitaleri asked staff what the cost would be to install rubber speed humps, and Manager Witthaus stated they would be approximately $6,500 a piece.
Councilmember Hamilton asked staff how long a temporary hump would last and Manager Witthaus stated the manufacturer states they will last up to six years, but staff has experienced problems with the hump within a year.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated the staff report lists the cost of the additional permanent speed bump as $25,000; however, staff verbally stated it was $12,000 and he asked for clarification on the cost. Manager Witthaus stated that $12,000 was a more accurate estimate based on research after the report was prepared.
Councilmember Spitaleri moved and Councilmember Hamilton seconded to approve Alternative No. 2: Direct staff to pursue additional traffic calming on Canary Drive
with the addition of: traffic calming to be identified as the installation of a permanent additional speed hump.
Councilmember Howe offered a friendly amendment that there will not be any further studies, or survey’s done on Canary Drive. Friendly amendment accepted.
Councilmember Moylan stated the data collected shows that the current traffic calming is enough, and expressed concerns that the facts are being ignored. He stated he will not support the motion.
Councilmember Hamilton expressed her concerns about other neighborhoods in need of traffic calming. She stated that should this motion be approved, there would be no future requests considered for this neighborhood.
Mayor Swegles stated the City has gone (above and beyond) with the calming devices that have been put in place. He stated the City has done as much as it can and he will not support this motion.
Vice Mayor Lee asked for clarification on where the funding would come from if the motion were to pass. Manager Witthaus stated there is a maximum of $5,000 available.
Councilmember Hamilton stated the neighborhood offered to come up with the additional funds needed, and that offer should be explored as an alternative for the remaining funds. Councilmember Spitaleri stated he would agree to make that one of the options, but would not make the motion contingent on that element and Councilmember Hamilton agreed.
City Manager Chan stated she preferred a definite plan for the source of funding; otherwise, the item would need to come back to Council for funding purposes.
Councilmember Howe stated the funding needs to be identified prior to voting on the motion as it could affect his vote. He offered a friendly amendment that the City utilizes the identified $5,000, and the neighborhood come up with the additional funds (approximately $7,000).
Councilmember Moylan stated he is uncomfortable asking the neighborhood to fund a City service (should it be deemed to be a valid City service). He stated Council needs to decide if this additional traffic calming is a service the City should provide and if so, the City needs to fund the project.
Friendly amendment was not accepted.
Councilmember Hamilton agreed with Councilmember Moylan that City services should be paid for by the City. However, because the street is already within the City’s calming traffic measure, but the neighborhood still wants an additional hump, then their contributing to the cost is reasonable.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated that citizens have the right to come before Council and make their case, regardless of the issue, and Council must look at each on a case-by-case basis and weigh the facts. He stated this neighborhood has been working on this issue for over eight years and that the traffic study showed that the neighborhood did need a total of three speed humps.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated his motion was to approve Alternative No. 2: Direct staff to pursue additional traffic calming on Canary Drive
with the addition of: additional traffic calming to be a permanent calming device, additional funds to come from the General Fund, and no further traffic calming studies or analysis of traffic to be done on this street.
Motion failed 3-3 (Councilmember Howe, Moylan and Mayor Swegles dissented, Councilmember Chu absent)
Councilmember Howe moved and Mayor Swegles seconded to approve Alternative No. 2: Direct staff to pursue additional traffic calming on Canary Drive
with the addition of: within the $5,000 budget and project to be completed in the next twelve months, and no further traffic calming studies or analysis of traffic to be done on this street.
Councilmember Spitaleri offered a friendly amendment that staff involves the neighborhood in the choice of the calming device.
Councilmember Howe asked if Councilmember Spitaleri would accept the amendment if it were clarified to state: staff will consult the neighborhood, but staff will make the final decision. Councilmember Spitaleri accepted the clarification to his friendly amendment and Councilmember Howe accepted the friendly amendment as clarified.
Councilmember Moylan offered that the motion be stated as:
Council approves Alternative No. 2: Direct staff to pursue additional traffic calming on Canary Drive
with the addition of: to authorize any additional traffic calming that can be accomplished within a budgetary limit of $5,000, project to be completed in the next twelve months, with no further traffic calming studies or analysis of traffic to be done on this street. Staff will consult the neighborhood, but staff will make the final decision.
Vice Mayor Lee offered a friendly amendment to leave the option open for the neighborhood to contribute the additional $7,000.
Councilmember Howe stated he would not accept that friendly amendment as he does not feel it is reasonable for the City to collect the additional funds from the neighborhood.
Motion carried 5-1 (Vice Mayor Lee dissented, Councilmember Chu absent).
|