1998-0409_HARDY & HARPER, INC._Correspondence V R
t •
•
Robana Stevenson
33691 Via Cascada
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
(714) 489-0486
April 9,1998
Alan Oswald
Associate Engineer/Traffic
City of San Juan Capistrano
Dear Alan Oswald,
I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me impromptu today. I'd like to
take this opportunity to reiterate some of our_ cpnversi,pm. _ our
..nation was the humps that are going to be installed on Via
San Juan Ca -fl ie matter of proper notification of
possible installation of speed humps, diversion of traffic due to installation of
speed humps, and the criteria which makes installation of speed humps
possible in residential neighborhoods.
During our meeting, I inquired about the short amount of time between when
I received the notice and the date that the City Council was going to consider
the matter of the speed humps. As you know I received notice not from your
office, but from Meridith Canyon Community Association on or about April 2,
1998, and the matter was heard on the seventh of April. Thus, I had four days
notice of the pending matter. I was then curious why we had not been notified
when the petition was originated, and when the matter was heard by City
Council the previous month. You then told me that no one on Canto or Cascada
was notified as this street was not considered to be a diversion for traffic
wanting to avoid speed humps. This determination was based on the original
placement plan of the first speed hump, going downhill, which was going to
be above Canto. However, it now seems that the placement of that speed hump
is now going below Canto which now makes Canto/Cascada the diversionary
street. Yet we were still not notified by your office or anyone from the city,
and a formal study of possible traffic diversion onto Canto/Cascada was not
conducted.
As we discussed this possible diversion you stated that you did not think that
traffic would be diverted through our street, even though it makes a horseshoe
from Canto, where the speed humps begins to Bonanza, where the speed humps
end. At this time I inquired as to where the traffic will be diverted on the day
of installation, and you responded by saying that it will be diverted onto
Canto/Cascada. Consequently, making it the true diversionary road for
motorists wishing to avoid speed humps.
In this particular case it is evident that the criteria for installation of speed
humps has not been met legally or according to current policy. It is my
understanding that one of the qualifying criteria is that there needs to be 67%
approval from residents in the affected area. Yet none of the residents of a
potentially affected area Canto/Cascada were ever notified. In addition
another of the qualifying criteria for the installation of speed humps is that
there be no traffic diverted to other residential streets. Yet no formal study
//o/ctc2
X 5.10 JUN 10 1998
C., 01 .
Gill Nu he v - Kespons e_
! c
I'
was completed on Canto/Cascada the horseshoe street that perfectly
circumvents the speed humps.
The recommendation to install speed humps on Via de Auga was not made
within the limits of your own policy. Thus, the council members were ill
informed when they were told that the impacted neighborhoods were
"noticed," and that all the diversionary streets were ruled out, when they only
examined Calita as a diversion. Due to the fore mentioned facts and policy
discriminations, it is not within the city's own policy to install speed humps
on Via de Auga. In addition, if the city chooses to ignore its own policy and
procedures and continue to install speed humps without the affected area's
approval, and these speed humps inadvertently, or directly cause an increase
in traffic on Canto/Cascada we will demand that the situation be rectified.
Currently we do not need speed humps on our street and that will not be a
satisfactory solution if traffic is diverted onto our street due to the installation
of speed humps on Via de Agua. We will demand that the humps be removed,
even if it means taking legal action.
During this city council meeting I witnessed a travesty of democracy. I heard
untruths told, such as the neighborhood was properly noticed. I also heard
decisions being made based on personal biases rather than fact and proper
procedure. An example of this is when Council Member Campbell said that she
had speed humps in her own neighborhood, and then the mayor concurred
and said something about himself having to live with speed humps in his
neighborhood so so do we.
I, like a number of my neighbors are extremely concerned about traffic being
diverted onto my street, and the clandestineness of the approval of these speed
humps. During the meeting people who live on Via de Auga mentioned a
number of reasons why they felt speed humps were necessary. However, after
the meeting one of them said, I don't care if traffic goes down someone else's
street its their turn for a change. It is not our turn. All of those people
purchased a house on that street of their own volition. Just as we consciously
did not purchase a house on that street because we did not want to be impacted
by traffic. While there may be a handful of original owners most of those
houses have been bought and sold more than once. Incidentally, the person
who seems to be spearheading the speed hump movement has lived in his
home approximately six months. It is not my turn to be forced into a situation
because he made an error in judgement.
At this point I am requesting that the installation of speed humps he re-
examined with proper notice and input from all of the affected area.
Sincerely,
/6/444^-'
Robana Stevenson
cc: Gil Jones, Mayor
John Greiner, Mayor pro tem
Colene Campbell, Council Member
David Swerdlin, Council Member
Wyatt Hart, Council Member