Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming Speed Humps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves speed humps at multiple neighborhood streets after public comments
Summary
The Vista City Council approved speed hump installations on several neighborhood streets (including Alta Vista Drive, East Indian Rock Road and Grapevine Road) after residents urged the council to act on long-standing speeding and pedestrian-safety concerns. Council adjusted one installation density after member feedback.
The Vista City Council unanimously approved multiple neighborhood traffic-calming projects, adding speed humps on several residential streets after residents described frequent speeding and unsafe conditions.
Residents spoke at the meeting in favor of speed humps on Alta Vista Drive, East Indian Rock Road and Grapevine Road. Speakers described narrow shoulders, missing sidewalks and drivers regularly exceeding safe speeds. "I'm desperate to have some safety on that road so we can walk with our families," said resident Renee Umberger about Alta Vista Drive.
Council discussion focused both on the apparent need and on placement density. Council Member Fox pulled item C9 (Alta Vista Drive) for discussion after residents raised concerns about the number and spacing of humps. City traffic engineer Sam Hassettin told the council the proposed spacing was slightly denser than the department's usual practice (about 350 feet between some humps) to cover a long stretch of concern. Council Member Fox proposed limiting one installation to two humps; colleagues negotiated a friendly amendment to install three humps on that stretch. The council approved the amended installation plan unanimously.
Item C11, speed humps on East Indian Rock Road, was approved following public testimony from a lifelong Vista resident who said the street had become a "danger zone for excessive speed." Item C13, speed humps on Grapevine Road, was also approved; resident speakers cited a history of speeding and a prior fatal crash at a curve.
The council approved the balance of the consent calendar — including other routine items — in a single unanimous vote. Where residents asked that an item be removed for a separate vote (three speed-hump items were removed for discussion), the council held brief public comment before taking each item separately.
Ending: The council directed staff to proceed with the installations as amended and to coordinate implementation and public notification. No additional funding reallocations were requested at the meeting.
