CC 2012-12-11_11.a. Adoption of Five Year Radar Speed SurveyMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BY:
TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MIKE LINN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR
SPEED SURVEY FOR SELECTED CITY STREETS
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Council:
1. adopt a Resolution certifying the five-year radar speed survey for selected City
streets identified in the 2012 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Study Report; and
2. approve Grace Lane traffic calming measures.
FUNDING:
Any costs associated with speed limit signs or traffic legends will be accommodated
within the FY 2012/13 Operating Budget.
BACKGROUND:
The California Vehicle Code requires an engineering and traffic speed survey to enable
the radar enforcement of any speed limit set by a local jurisdiction. Due to the
constraints of the pursuit method of enforcement on City streets, this requirement
effectively dictates all enforcement of locally adopted speed limits. Consequently, traffic
speed enforcement within the City is currently restricted to those limits expressly
established by the Vehicle Code, such as the 25 mph school zone limit when children
are present. Absent such express limits, the 55 mph maximum limit prevails, and no
lower speed limit can be effectively enforced.
Staff representatives from the Police and Engineering Departments performed a status
review of the City streets requiring vehicle speed surveys to determine their validity for
enforcement. Staff determined that there were 13 (thirteen) roadway segments where
the surveys had either expired or had never been performed. Due to limited staff
resources, staff contracted with Begur Consulting, a multi-dimensional engineering firm,
to perform the requisite studies in accordance with the requirements of California
Vehicle Code Section 627. Begur Consulting completed the study and forwarded the
enclosed 2012 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Study Report to City staff on November
19, 2012 (see Attachment No. 1).
Item 11.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY
FOR SELECTED CITY STREETS
DECEMBER 11, 2012
PAGE 2 OF 5
On November 26, 2012, staff presented the 2012 Citywide Engineering and Traffic
Study Report to the Traffic Commission. Staff provided public notification of the Traffic
Commission meeting to discuss the proposed speed limit revisions in a display ad in
The Tribune (see Attachment No. 2). Staff also mailed an informational flyer to all
occupants on the street segments recommended for revisions to the speed limits (see
Attachment No. 3). The Traffic Commission reviewed the material, accepted public
comment, and developed a recommendation to the Council to certify the report.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The basic presumption of the engineering and traffic speed survey requirement is that
the majority of the public drives at a reasonable speed and that limits should be
established which reflect this. The 85th percentile is generally accepted as the
statistical break between reasonable and unreasonable drivers. By the requirements of
California Vehicle Code (see Attachment No. 4), a limit must be set at the five-mile-per-
hour increment reflecting the observed 85th percentile (or critical) speed, unless the City
Engineer determines that there are mitigating factors not readily observable to the
driver. The accident history is also considered, and the City Engineer is permitted to
lower the critical speed by five-miles-per-hour under specified circumstances.
As a rule, arbitrary five-mile-per-hour reduction of a properly determined speed limit
makes lawbreakers of approximately 35 percent of otherwise responsible drivers.
Establishing a speed limit at the recommended level where the existing posted speed
limit is lower should not be viewed as raising the speed limit. It is an establishment of
the speed that legally defined reasonable drivers are already driving, and it allows
enforcement of citations against those who are exhibiting unreasonable behavior. 2012
Citywide Engineering and Traffic Study Report lists the following recommendations for
the thirteen roadway segments:
Street Street Segment Existing 85th 0 /olile Recommended
(MPH) (MPH) (MPH)
Traffic Way E Grand I W Branch to Fair Oaks Ave. 35 37.0 35
Traffic Way Fair Oaks Ave. to Hwy 101 SB On-Ramp 35 41.0 35
Fair Oaks Ave. S. Elm St. to S. Halcyon Rd. 25 35.0 30
Fair Oaks Ave. S. Halcyon Rd. to Valley Rd. 40 45.0 40
TallyHo Rd. Via La Barranca to James Way 25 36.0 30
TallyHo Rd. James Way to Corbett Canyon Rd. 25 39.0 35
Grace Lane Rodeo Dr. (South) to Rodeo Dr. (North) N/A 41.0 35
James Way N. Oak Park Blvd. to Equestrian Way 40 44.0 40
James Way Equestrian Way to Rancho Parkway 40 46.0 40
James Way Rancho Parkway to Hidden Oak Rd. 40 39.0 40
James Way Hidden Oak Rd. to Tally Ho Rd. 35 41.0 35
Huasna Rd. E Branch St. to Stagecoach Rd. 45 44.0 45
Huasna Rd. Stagecoach Rd. to City Limits 45 48.0 45
Item 11.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY
FOR SELECTED CITY STREETS
DECEMBER 11, 2012
PAGE 3 OF 5
Four roadway segments are identified for revised posted speed limits, signified by the
balded/italicized numbers in the "Recommended (MPH)" column. The following is a
brief explanation of each of the segments:
TallyHo Road (Via La Barranca to James Way) 30 mph
TallyHo Road (James Way to Corbett Canyon Road) 35 mph
On July 11, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3936 to establish
speed limits on various City streets. Although a speed survey had been
performed for Tally Ho Road that would indicate a higher speed limit, staff had
recommended Tally Ho Road be classified as a residential roadway in
accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 515 to classify the street
as a "Residence District" and recommended lowering the speed limit to the
residential Prima Facie speed of 25 mph accordingly. Upon changing the posted
speed limit signage and pavement markings, the Police Department began to
enforce the 25 mph limit. Unfortunately, the Traffic Commissioner at Superior
Court reviewed the issued citations and declared Tally Ho Road to be a speed
trap in accordance with CVC Section 40802. This effectively prohibited the
Police Department from enforcing speed limits along Tally Ho Road until a valid
speed survey was performed and adopted by City Council.
The 2006 survey recommended Tally Ho Road speed limits of 35 mph west of
the James Way intersection and 40 mph east of the intersection. Since the
speeds had previously been determined by the Council to be too high, it was
decided to implement traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures before
performing another speed survey.
In the Summer of 2010, the City performed a capital project to install missing
sidewalk segments on the south side of Tally Ho Road. Realizing the unique
opportunity, staff incorporated the following traffic calming measures into the
project design:
• Inclusion of multi-way stop assemblies on Tally Ho Road at the
James Way intersection and new crosswalk on the western leg of
TallyHo Road,
• Narrow the traffic lanes to 11 feet in width by adding edge line
striping,
• Installed digital speed limit signs to alert drivers of their actual
speed.
The traffic calming measures have now been in place for over two years and
have been effective in lowering the vehicle speeds. The new survey
recommends 30 mph west of the James Way intersection and 35 mph east of the
intersection, a reduction of 5 mph when compared to the last survey.
Item 11.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY
FOR SELECTED CITY STREETS
DECEMBER 11, 2012
PAGE 4 OF 5
Fair Oaks Avenue (South Elm Street to South Halcyon Road) 30 mph
Staff used the same justification to establish the speed limit at the residential
Prima Facie speed of 25 mph. Similar to Tally Ho Road, the roadway width
exceeds 40 feet and the roadway is classified in the City's Traffic Circulation Plan
as a collector. Per the California Vehicle Code, Fair Oaks Avenue in front of the
Margaret Harloe Elementary School would remain at 25 mph, when children are
present.
Grace Lane (Rodeo Road (South) to Rodeo Road (North) 35 mph
Grace Lane was constructed in 2010 as part of a new residential development
and a speed limit has yet to be established. The roadway is classified as a
residential collector, 40 feet in width, and is equipped with two lanes and a
parking lane on the north side. When approved, the Grace Lane development
was designed to increase connectivity between James Way and West Branch
Street. To accommodate the traffic anticipated, units were required to provide
driveway configurations that avoid vehicles having to back into the roadway as
they do on Rodeo Drive.
However, in response to the concerns expressed by the Grace Lane residents,
staff recommends the following traffic calming measures be implemented:
1. Implement a striping plan developed by staff which will narrow the driving
lanes to 11 feet in width and create an edge line to define the parking lane
in an attempt to provide a visual "narrowing" of the roadway;
2. Install a digital speed limit sign warning vehicles of their actual speed on
the downhill side of the street adjacent to the residential properties;
3. Install a warning sign on Grace Lane approaching the neighborhood; and
4. Provide a concentrated police traffic enforcement effort.
The City could then perform a follow-up survey after these measures are in place
for a sufficient trial period. The cost to provide a follow-up survey is estimated to
be $2,500. It would be preferable to post the 35 mph speed limit and then re-
evaluate the speed with a follow-up survey rather than wait to post the speed
because it would enable the Police Department to provide traffic enforcement
concurrent with implementation of the traffic calming measures.
Residents have also questioned the validity of the speed measurements given
when they were collected. While a different time may impact the traffic volumes,
staff does not believe it would change the average speeds. Therefore, staff does
not believe the results would change until traffic calming measures are
implemented.
Item 11.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR SPEED SURVEY
FOR SELECTED CITY STREETS
DECEMBER 11, 2012
PAGE 5 OF 5
ADVANTAGES:
Approval of the 2012 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Study Report will provide a legal
basis for the Police Department to enforce speed limits on the identified City roadway
segments that does not currently exist.
DISADVANTAGES:
At the Traffic Commission meeting, residents of Tally Ho Road and Grace Lane
disagreed with the findings of the report. Many believed that the collection of data was
performed in the summer months and that another study should be performed. They
believed that the majority of traffic did not live in the neighborhood and are trying to
commute through their street as quickly as possible. However, they have also
expressed concerns that Police enforcement is critical to keeping speeds lower, which
cannot be addressed until a speed survey is certified.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the City Council's consideration:
Adopt a Resolution certifying the 2012 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Study
Report;
Modify and adopt the Resolution with elimination of specific streets that will
remain unenforceable;
Appropriate additional funding and direct staff to redo the vehicle speed survey
on specified streets;
Appropriate additional funding and direct staff to request the City's traffic
engineering consultant to prepare a study on additional traffic calming
alternatives;
Do not certify the report and perform a new survey at a future date; or
Provide direction to staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A CEQA review is not required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, December 6, 2012. The
Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, December 7, 2012.
Prior to the Traffic Commission meeting, staff provided public notification to all
occupants on the street segments recommended for revisions to the speed limits (see
Attachment No. 3) and also placed a display ad in The Tribune (see Attachment No.2).
Attachments:
1. 2012 Citywide Engineering and Traffic Study Report
2. Newspaper Public Notification Display Ad
3. Public Notification Mailing
4. California Vehicle Code 627
5. Public Correspondence
Item 11.a. - Page 5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE FIVE-YEAR RADAR
SPEED SURVEY FOR SELECTED CITY STREETS
WHEREAS, the City Council of Arroyo Grande has conducted engineering and
traffic speed surveys (collectively referred to herein as the "surveys") on various City
streets in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code; and
WHEREAS, the Assistant City Engineer and the Community Development Director
have analyzed the surveys, made appropriate adjustments, and made
recommendations for the establishment of speed limits on said streets in accordance
with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code; and
WHEREAS, radar enforcement of any speed limit other than those expressly
established by State law requires that such speed limits be based upon an
engineering and traffic speed survey as has been conducted; and
WHEREAS, the Police Chief has carefully reviewed and fully supports the
recommendations of the Assistant City Engineer and the Community Development
Director.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby certifies the surveys and establishes speed limits on various City
streets as provided below:
Traffic Way (East Grand Avenue to Fair Oaks Avenue)
Fair Oaks Avenue (South Elm Street to South Halcyon Road)
Fair Oaks Avenue (South Halcyon Road to Valley Road)
Tally Ho Road (Via La Barranca to James Way)
Tally Ho Road (James Way to Corbett Canyon Road)
Grace Lane (Rodeo Road (South) to Rodeo Road (North)
James Way (Oak Park Blvd. to Hidden Oak Road)
James Way (Hidden Oak Road to TallyHo Road)
Huasna Road (Corbett Canyon Road to Stagecoach Road)
Huasna Road (Stagecoach Road to City Limits)
35 mph
30 mph
40 mph
30 mph
35 mph
35 mph
40 mph
35 mph
45 mph
45 mph
On motion by Council Member _______ , seconded by Council Member
, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___ day of ____ , 2012.
Item 11.a. - Page 6
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 11.a. - Page 7
Item 11.a. - Page 8
Item 11.a. - Page 9
Item 11.a. - Page 10
Item 11.a. - Page 11
Item 11.a. - Page 12
Item 11.a. - Page 13
Item 11.a. - Page 14
Item 11.a. - Page 15
Item 11.a. - Page 16
Item 11.a. - Page 17
Item 11.a. - Page 18
Item 11.a. - Page 19
Item 11.a. - Page 20
Item 11.a. - Page 21
Item 11.a. - Page 22
Item 11.a. - Page 23
Item 11.a. - Page 24
Item 11.a. - Page 25
Item 11.a. - Page 26
Item 11.a. - Page 27
Item 11.a. - Page 28
Item 11.a. - Page 29
Item 11.a. - Page 30
Item 11.a. - Page 31
Item 11.a. - Page 32
Item 11.a. - Page 33
Item 11.a. - Page 34
Item 11.a. - Page 35
Item 11.a. - Page 36
Item 11.a. - Page 37
Item 11.a. - Page 38
Item 11.a. - Page 39
Item 11.a. - Page 40
Item 11.a. - Page 41
Item 11.a. - Page 42
Item 11.a. - Page 43
Item 11.a. - Page 44
Item 11.a. - Page 45
Item 11.a. - Page 46
Item 11.a. - Page 47
Item 11.a. - Page 48
Item 11.a. - Page 49
Item 11.a. - Page 50
Item 11.a. - Page 51
Item 11.a. - Page 52
Item 11.a. - Page 53
Item 11.a. - Page 54
Item 11.a. - Page 55
Item 11.a. - Page 56
Item 11.a. - Page 57
Item 11.a. - Page 58
Item 11.a. - Page 59
Item 11.a. - Page 60
Item 11.a. - Page 61
Item 11.a. - Page 62
Item 11.a. - Page 63
Item 11.a. - Page 64
Item 11.a. - Page 65
Item 11.a. - Page 66
Item 11.a. - Page 67
Item 11.a. - Page 68
Item 11.a. - Page 69
Item 11.a. - Page 70
Item 11.a. - Page 71
Item 11.a. - Page 72
Item 11.a. - Page 73
Item 11.a. - Page 74
Item 11.a. - Page 75
Item 11.a. - Page 76
Item 11.a. - Page 77
Item 11.a. - Page 78
Item 11.a. - Page 79
Item 11.a. - Page 80
Item 11.a. - Page 81
Item 11.a. - Page 82
Item 11.a. - Page 83
Item 11.a. - Page 84
Item 11.a. - Page 85
Item 11.a. - Page 86
Item 11.a. - Page 87
Item 11.a. - Page 88
Item 11.a. - Page 89
Item 11.a. - Page 90
Item 11.a. - Page 91
Jennifer Padilla-Burger, M.S.
399 Tally Ho Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
November 25, 2012
City of Arroyo Grande Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear City of Arroyo Grande Council Members,
ATTACHMENT 5
This Friday we received a letter regarding the Begur Engineering findings and recommend_ations for
speed limit adjustments.· As a resident of Tally Ho, I am writing specifically about number 6, the street
segment from James Way· to Corbett Canyon Road/Printz Road. Through my observations, I believe it
would be dangerous to increase the speed from 25 MPH to 35 MPH.
As a mother of two children under the age of two, I place safety above all else. This consideration
applies to both our neighbors and vehicular traffic equally. The findings indicate that people are
traveling 14 miles over the speed limit regularly. This should call attention to the reckless driving taking
piace on our street, NOT increasing the.speecllimit to at least 35 MPH. Commonly, people tend to drive
5 MPH above p9sted speed limits. This leads me to believe that we will be seeing speeds of 40 MPH and
-o~yond on a regular basis if the speed limit is increased. I find this to be hazardous to the residents and
pedestrians on TallyHo Road.
Daily, I see children walking to and from school or their bus stop. My family walks down to the Village
fro~ our home several times a week. To do this, we have to cross Tally Ho Road. If the speed were to
increase to 35 MPH, I would fear for the safety of the school-aged children, joggers, and families that
live on this street. The decision to increase the speed limit would encourage further speeding and
reckless behaviors. I invite you to think about your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews when
you make this serious decision that will impact our community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Item 11.a. - Page 92
Brian Burger, Firefighter EMT-P
TallyHo Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
November 25, 2012 ·
City of Arroyo Grande Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear City of Arroyo Grande Council Members,
.-~ -,--
·I am a Firefighter/Paramedic and father of two toddlers. As a resident of TallyHo Road, I am concerned
about the recommendations of Segur Engineering to increase the speed limit from 25 MPH to 35 MPH. . .·' ..
Daily, at my job I witness terrible and. sometimes tragic accidents that are often the result of speeding
and reckless driving. It is clear that some travelers already speed on TallyHo Road and I can imagine
that a speed limit increase will further jeopardize the safety of the residents on this street. No one
wants to go on a medical call fo"r a child or person who has been injured in a serious accident that could
have been prevented by maintaining and enforcing a·safe speed limit.
I strongly urge you to consider t~e saf~!Y of the residents and travelers on this street when making·this
decision. Very possibly, you could be saving a life.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Burger, Firefighter EMT-P
Item 11.a. - Page 93
Mike Linn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi,
My name is Bob Perez.
Grace.
Bob and Mardell Perez
Mondav. Novemb.er 26, 2012 5:55 PM
..
Mike Linn
Traffic issues on Grace Lane
My wife, Mardell, and my two children, have recently moved into
r •
I was told by my wife that you were going to speak with the traffic commission regarding the
speed issues on our street.
I called Mike Linn and spoke with him regarding the plans for the street. He explained the
existing plan is to stripe the street, stripe the parking adjacent to the homes, and post 35
MPH limit signs.
I explained to Mike I had reviewed a document online related to the development, that stated
the builder should consider posting 25 MPH speed limits, and installing speed humps.
Once I find this document I will be sending to him for review and will cc you for your files.
Thank you for taking point on this.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for help. I work for Santa Barbara County so am
comfortable dealing with government agencies.
Regards,
Bob and Mardell Perez
(805) 704-9758 and {805) 704-9665
1
Item 11.a. - Page 94
Mike Linn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mr. Linn,
Dennis & Claudine .. ,,
Monday, November 26, 2012 2:13PM
"mlinn@arroyogrande.org"
PROPOSAL TO INCREASE SPEED LIMIT ON GRACE LANE.
My name is Claudine Lingo. My husband (Dennis) and I live on Grace Lane.
A neighbor informed us this afternoon that the Traffic Commission is meeting tonight to discuss
increasing the speed limit on Grace Lane to 35 mph. As a resident of Grace Lane, we strongly·
oppose increasing the speed limit. In fact, we would highly recommend that the speed limit remain at
25 mph and that speed bumps like those on Rodeo Drive be constructed to discourage speeding.·
We are often concerned about our safety as well as our dogs when we walk on Grace Lane. ·It is bad
enough trying to get out of our driveway as it is now; increasing the speed limit will further aggravate ·
the situation.
I -~-
We have to pay a hefty assessment on our property taxes :to maintain the wild area on Grace Lane
which provides wildlife 'habitat. If the speed limit is increased to 35 mph, then the deer and other
animals l_i.ving. in the wild area are at even greater danger of being struck by a car. What's the ! .-~-·-·
purpose of paying an assessment to maintain the wild area if the risk of the animal inhabitants being
killed by sp_!:!eding cars is increased? --.£ · .--
, Our mailboxes were moved to a rather inconvenient location by the Grace Bible Chu-rch due to a:
concern for the mail carrier because of the traffic on Grace L<fne. Now we have to stand in the street
to retrieve our mail from the mailboxes. (Prior to relocation of the mailboxes, we stood on a sidewalk
as did the mail carrier.) If it was too dangerous for the mail carrier to park his truck on Grace Lane
'!'lith a speed limit of 25 mph, how safe will it be for residents to stand in the street to retrieve their mail
in an area with a 35 mph speed limit?
Furthermore, we have heard that there is discussion about building a freeway offramp that would
dump traffic onto Rodeo Drive which could significantly increase the traffic on Grace Lane. While we
understand that something needs to be done to resolve the congestion at the Branch Street offranip,
we do not support a major increase in traffic in the residential areas. Significant efforts must be made
to divert traffic to the bl:Jsiness thoroughfares and ensure that our neighborhoods don't experience
significant increases in traffic driving at even higher speeds.
I understand that a public notice was placed in the newspaper about the speed limit increase;
however, we believe the city could have either placed notices on the street or our front porches since
most residents probably don't read the classifieds. I know the law ()nly requires government to place
public notices in the newspapers, but since there are only 5 houses and the 4 townhouse-like homes,
would it really have been too much effort to deliver notices to Grace Lane residents?
We look forward to hearing the discussion at the meeting this evening.
Claudine Lingo
1
Item 11.a. - Page 95
Mike Linn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
david merlo .. _
Monday, November 26, 2012 12:04 PM
Mike Linn
Grace Lane Traffic
Dear Commission Members,
My name is Katie Merlo and my husband David· and lliv.e at', Grace Lane along with our three
small children. I am writing to address my concern regarding the proposed speed limit of 35mph on
Grace Lane.
·· My children enjoy riding their bikes, skateboards and scooters along the sidewalk on a daily-basis.·
Several months ago a friend from a nearby neighborhood shared with me .that while. walking her dog
a speeding car lost control and came up onto the sidewalk nearly hitting.her and her dog. I have
placed my "children at play" signs out to alert passers by only to be ignored. One person even yelled
out his window .informing me of his disapproval. The six small children who live on this street, future
}children-who may move here, and numerous pedestrians that-frequent Grace Lane deserve to be~-
safe. ~ ·
In addition, the location of duceommunity mailbox was moved from a location where residents would
have convenient access to ·a place that is less convenient all because of the mail carrier's traffic
.4 concern. A neighbor was told that the mailman feared that a speeding car coming··dowri the road
would hit his mail truck. Wtiile the new location might be safer for the mail carrier, it's riot safe for us,
the residents, who have·to ·acquire our mail by actually standing in the street with speeding cars ..
/
There is also a major blind spot along Grace Lane where it is difficult to know when there may be
oncoming traffic. I have seen several cars swerve out of the way nearly.hitting .the guardrail or
sidewalk to avoid a GOIIision putting pedestrians and parked cars in harm's way.
A 35mph speed lim,it would be an open invitation for people to go 40 or more. In my opinion that is
much too fast for a residential street. !·urge the commission to reconsider'the proposed speed limit for
the safety of our community.
Sincerely,
Katie Merlo
1
Item 11.a. - Page 96
From: Bob and Mardell Perez l
Sent: Wed 12/5/2012 10:32 AM
To: Tony Ferrara
Cc: Tim Brown; Joe ·costello; Jim Guthrie; caren Ray;
Subject: FW: Grace Lane Speed Limit
December 5, 2012
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
My family and I moved to .• Grace Lane, Arroyo Grande, on November 5, 2012. My husband and I are
raising our "2" grandsons whc;> are 12 and 4 years old. They are "both" Special Needs Children.
When we bought our home, we did not realize "how fast" the traffic speeds up and down our street. We
were told it was only slightly busy, on Sundays, due to the Grace Bible Church members. Unfortunately,
this is not the case!
We have witnessed the following:
1.) cars are moving at speeds of up to 70 mph with MANY teenagers using our street to "drag race" in
their cars during the day and night. One raced straight down the middle cif our street at 9:00 PM on a
Satuday night.
2.) Many people, speeding down our street, are the so-called "Soccer Moms" rushing their children to St.
Patrick's School, because they are late, in the mornings, getting their children to school on time. One
mom drove on the other side of the street and almost hit the guardrail as I was pulling out of my
driveway. She was "on a mission" to get her child to school on time! I drove up to her and rolled my
window down stating "You didn't get to school any sooner speeding and you could of taken out our
family and your family, because of your "unsafe" driving!" She just ignored my comment and drove
away.
3.) On Sundays, many people are either coming or going to Grace Bible Church. Some are late for the
service and, of course, are "speeding" to get there. Others are leaving church and are on their cell
phones, not paying attention, as they drive past our house. We, as residents, have a tough time pulling
out of our driveways, because many drivers have their heads "bent down" texting as they drive.
4.) There are "skateboarders" who use our street as a "skakeboard ramp." One such skateboarder has
been told numerous times, by us, to, "Please, go somewhere else to skateboard. We do not want a
death in front of our house." Of course, a few minutes after that message was said to him, he fell and
just missed hitting my husband's parked truck on the street. They "continue to ignore" our warnings!
5.) Our grandchildren, as I mentioned, are 12 and 4 years old. They "cannot" play basketball in their
front yard due to the "heavy traffic" this street possesses. We moved here hoping the children could, at
least, enjoy the front and back yards of their home. Plus, get to know the children on the street and be
able to play at each other's houses. With the cars "speeding up and down our street" that is not even
possible. The fear of a collision possibly "killing our children" reduces that enjoyment entirely!
6.) The speed limit "should be" 25 mph, NOT 35 mph, because of the children who live here and the
new children coming, who will be moving into the neighborhood when the other homes are built. THE
CHILDREN'S SAFETY IS THE MAIN IMPORTANCE HERE!
7.) Because the speed bumps are on Rodeo Drive, drivers take Grace Lane to avoid the speed bumps,
thus, sending more traffic up and down our street.
Item 11.a. - Page 97
COMMENT:
There is "NO" consideration for the children on this street! Does it take a child being ."killed" in order for
change to take place? Now is the time to put the Speed Limit at 25 mph and, actually, put in Speed
Bumps in order to reduce speeding, drag racing and skateboarders going up and down our street. All it
will take is one death and you will be "too late" to fix it. I wouldn't want that issue on my hands!
Please, ladies and gentlemen, please, at least drive down our street at anytime. Just sit along the curb,
in your car, and you will see "HOW FAST" these cars are travelling to get to their destinations. Take the
time to observe what we endure every day of the week.
Thank you kindly!
Respectfully Submitted,
Mardell and Robert Perez
.,_. Grace Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420-2690
Subject: Fwd: Grace Lane Speed Limit
From:. . .,.· ,...... ;"· ··~'-.. _
Date: Tue, 4 Dec :zu12 2L:38:19 -0800
To:----------· ·--····
-.... ! :.··
Here's a copy of what I sent to the council:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Katie Merlo
Date: December 4, 2012 10:34:22 PM PST
To: tferrara@arroyogrande.org
Cc: tbrown@arroyogrande.org, jcostello@arroyogrande.org, jguthrie@arroyogrande.org,
cray@arroyogrande.org, Katie Merj_o. ··--·-·
Subject: Grace Lane Speed Limit
December 4, 2012
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Katie Merlo and my husband David and I live at Grace Lane along with our three small
children. I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and resident regarding the proposed speed limit of
35mph on our street. I would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to read this letter.
My children enjoy riding their bikes, skateboards and scooters along the sidewalk on a daily basis.
Several months ago a friend who lives on nearby Rodeo Drive shared with me that while walking her dog
Item 11.a. - Page 98
a speeding car lost control and came up on to the sidewalk nearly hitting her and her dog. I have placed
"children at play" signs out to alert passers by to slow down only to be ignored even when my children
and I are in plain sight. In a prior letter to the Traffic Commission I shared that one person even yelled
out his window letting me know that he disapproved of the signs. People are not being respectful of our
neighborhood and are simply going too fast. The small children who live on Grace Lane, future children
who may move here, and the numerous pedestrians that frequent our street DESERVE TO BE SAFE.
Also, in the previous letter I mentioned the moving of our community mailbox was due to the fact that
our mail carrier feared being hit by a car speeding down the road, and the fact that Grace Lane has two
blind spots that make it difficult to see oncoming traffic. Our street is also more narrow than other street
and it is difficult to navigate when cars are parked along the road. i ENCOURAGE EACH OF YOU TO TAKE
A DRIVE DOWN OUR STREET SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE NEXT FEW DAYS SO THAT YOU CAN
EXPERIENCE WHAT I AM DESCRIBING. A 35mph speed limit on Grace Lane is much too fast. It would
be an open invitation for drivers to go 40 or more. That is NOT acceptable.
My husband and I recently attended the Traffic Commission meeting on November 26th regarding this
issue. We believe that the information in the traffic study report is not an accurate representation of
what we live with on a daily basis. We've noted that the study took place on a summer day during the
hours of 9:00am-10:30am. School was not in session and there were very few activities going on at
nearby Grace Bible Church and Rancho Grande Park.
On the contrary, the MAJORITY OF THE YEAR there are many activities that take place at Grace Bible
church during the week: youth basketball games, Awana's meetings on Tuesday nights and various
.church related functions. Rancho Grande Park is also very busy throughout the year holding various
sports practices: baseball, softball, soccer and basketball to name a few. Many people use our street as
access to these places, not to mention regular traffic due to people traveling to and from work and school
throughout the week. Needless to say our street can be busy. Another reason why a slower speed limit
would be appropriate.
At the Traffic Committee meeting Mr. Linn mentioned that Grace Lane was originally designed to be a
"collector road," however the traffic study clearly designates Grace Lane as a "residential" area. It is
difficult to understand why the city would approve private residences on such a road, but the fact
remains that our homes exist and so the city must adjust accordingly.
I have taken the time to drive city streets and have found areas where there are NO PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS and the speed limit is lower than what is being proposed on Grace Lane. CAMINO
MERCADO is one example where the speed limit is posted at 30mph. LA CANADA has no private
driveways until you enter the Highlands community and the speed limit is posted at 30mph. OAK PARK
ROAD is also posted at 30mph and 25 in some areas. OLD RANCH ROAD is yet another example, yet
probably similar to Grace Lane in that it does have private driveways. The speed limit there is also
30mph. In addition, the speed limit on GRAND AVENUE and TRAFFIC WAY is 35mph. Grace Lane is NOT
Grand Avenue or Traffic Way.
Once again, I URGE YOU TO DRIVE OUR STREET. As you do, imagine cars pulling in and out of
driveways, children riding bikes, people taking a leisurely stroll with their pets, families playing soccer in
their front yards, deer, jackrabbits and coyotes crossing the road. I believe you will find 35mph to be
unacceptable as well, and I ask that you carefully consider the speed limit that is to be posted on Grace
Lane.
Kind regards,
Katie Merlo
Item 11.a. - Page 99
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 11.a. - Page 100