HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-02 Jan McIntyre Bollard Letter INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSAL OF
BOLLARDS IN WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
From the inception of Woodbridge Subdivision over 20 years ago , every home in this
subdivision was purchased having direct access to Eagle Road and Locust Grove Road, with
no reason for homeowners to consider or anticipate that could or would ever be altered . One
of the assets of Woodbridge is quick and easy access to the freeway, as well as to the
numerous medical facilities , medical providers , and businesses located in and around Magic
View and Eagle Road . This access has been and continues to be a benefit that enhances our
property values . The Locust Grove entrance/exit also gives us needed access to other
locations ; however, it is already dangerous to negotiate with five ( 5 ) lanes of traffic . This
danger will only increase with additional traffic on Locust Grove, as well as added winter road
conditions . It cannot safely be our only way to enter/exit our subdivision .
While concerned about traffic calming, the homeowners of Woodbridge have chosen twice
not to have speed bumps installed to slow traffic down, mostly due to their perception of
inconvenience to homeowners . Speed bumps don ' t begin to compare to the inconvenience of
blocking an entrance/exit with bollards . Yes , Woodbridge can anticipate additional traffic
from both the Magic View and Locust Grove sides of our subdivision in the future . At this
point, they are predictions and speculations as to the exact numbers and effect on our
neighborhood.
A gate at the Magic View entrance would be a HUGE help/solution to what we anticipate
could become much heavier traffic driving through our subdivision . From the information
provided by the HOA Board in 2025 , the City Council stated they were not comfortable
developing the property on Wells until they came up with a solution for the Woodbridge
traffic . On January 27 , 2026 , Mayor Simison stated to ACHD " at this point, we might as
well gate Woodbridge . " That, of course, would be the preferred solution, giving Woodbridge
Subdivision residents their ongoing access to and from the Magic View entrance leading to
Eagle Road . Then at the City Council meeting of February 24 , 2026 , the Mayor asked if
Woodbridge would be in favor of placing bollards on the Magic View entrance/exit, blocking
all traffic (homeowners , residents , visitors , deliveries , emergency vehicles , etc . ) . If the Mayor
has suggested each of these options , the first one of having a gate is the only right thing to do .
If ACHD (who owns the streets) has the authority to say no to a gate (despite the Mayor ' s
suggestion) , then it must have the authority to say no to the suggestion of bollards , which is
extremely more restrictive to Woodbridge than gating the Magic View entrance . If the idea is
to rectify a wrong decision made when developing Woodbridge Subdivision, how is further
penalizing Woodbridge a way to correct the mistake ? Completely closing the access to
residents at Magic View or Locust Grove is not a way to right the decisions previously made .
Again, having only one one way in and out of our subdivision, especially if that is via Locust
Grove , would be dangerous in all the ways we haven ' t taken seriously enough .
There has also been a proposal to build a new road (outside of our subdivision) to connect
Eagle Road to Locust Grove Road, thereby rectifying the traffic issues for Woodbridge . If
1
Woodbridge deserves help navigating its traffic flow due to the decisions previously made,
one gate at Magic View or one connector road between Eagle Road and Locust Grove could
give us the relief needed as well as protect our homeowner property values .
The Woodbridge neighborhood vote on the bollard issue also has some concerning issues ,
The Woodbridge HOA Board scheduled a meeting held at Mountain View High School on
Wednesday, March 4 , 2026 . The notices posted and circulated by the HOA Board in advance
of this meeting indicated "urgency" and that a person from every household should attend -
almost making it seem " emergency" in nature . The explanation was that the Mayor asked for
Woodbridge to determine if the neighborhood would be in favor of bollards . When arriving,
attendees were directed to multiple sheets of paper laid out on tables for them to sign . At the
top of the sheets in small print, it indicated that only "yes " votes should sign . Many believed
that signing was only for attendance purposes , but discovered later that signing was only for
those voting "yes " to the proposal of traffic bollards . No sheets were available for "no " votes .
The meeting itinerary provided by the Board to each homeowner (and/or resident) prior to this
meeting clearly stated the meeting would begin with a twenty (20) minute presentation by the
HOA Board spokesperson, followed by the voting, then discussion . Even though this was
presented as a " crucial" meeting, with voting being it ' s main purpose , there was no time
allotted by the Board for any homeowner or homeowner spokesperson to present opposing
views or additional concerns prior to the vote being taken . However, the voting had actually
begun by way of the sign-up sheets before the meeting even started and prior to the
presentation of any information . In stark contrast, when the voting time set out on the
itinerary started, there was no place to vote "NO . " There did not seem to be any parameters
given to the Board for how to obtain these votes , leaving the Board free to obtain votes from
renters or any other non- owners living in a Woodbridge residence . People with absolutely no
monetary investment in our properties were asked to vote on bollards , even though they have
no financial stake in the property or property values of Woodbridge . It seems reasonable that
in order to get a fair and verified voting count (which was the intention of this meeting) there
would need to be a voting form that included all Woodbridge addresses , the name of the legal
owners of these properties , a place for each HOMEOWNER to sign, and a place to vote YES
or NO . In the HOA Board presentation that began this meeting, the spokesperson announced
that anyone who didn ' t sign and vote at this Wednesday gathering would have an HOA
representative come to their door to ascertain their vote . That did not happen as stated . The
assumption by homeowners should be that if a representative came to your door they would
have the same voting form, a place for the HOMEOWNER ' S signature, and a place to vote
YES or NO . We don't believe the process we were presented with resulted in an accurate or
fair vote . There have admittedly been attendees who signed the sheets at the meeting without
realizing the sign- in sheets were only for " YES " votes . ALSO , allowing renters to vote may
not be illegal, but would appear unethical since the importance of this decision can and will
affect only Woodbridge Subdivision Homeowners ' financial investments and property values .
Property values are a BIG issue that requires more research and study. Closing the Magic
View entrance/exit with bollards will make Woodbridge less desirable for those seeking easy
freeway access , which many appreciated when they purchased homes here . We can be more
certain that a gate will increase our property values , and bollards will decrease our property
values .
2
A copy of the CONCLUSIONS included in the TRAFFIC SOLUTION FOR WOODBRIDGE
information provided by the Board to the homeowners (and it appears renters also ) prior to
voting is attached hereto . We believe it contains erroneous information and inaccuracies that
cannot be substantiated and may have encouraged "Yes " votes based on this information . Our
responses are set out below :
To the second bullet, "a gate is not an option : "
At one point, it was suggested by the Mayor . It is not impossible - if an
entity/authority can say "no " , they can also say "yes . " However, if a gate is not going
to be considered or approved to give homeowners the ability to use both of its
entrances/exits , then bollards should also not be approved to block homeowners from
using its entrances/exits , and retaining easy access to the freeway and other amenities .
To the third bullet, " City Council & ACHD have provided us this option of bollards : "
This insinuates that the option of bollards has already been approved by City Council
& ACHD , and all we need to do is agree . No approval for a gate , but approval for
bollards seems like a really bad deal for Woodbridge .
To the fourth bullet, " If the presented option of bollards does not pass , the city will use this to
` wash their hands ' and remove their liability should a child get hurt or killed : "
This is ludicrous - the Board should not be telling homeowners that we should agree to
bollards or the city will wash their hands of us , as well as remove their liability for a
child being injured . This is a step too far and a high- handed tactic to ascertain " yes "
votes . Also , this is not the way legal liability works .
To the fifth bullet, " If bollards fail , we will lose all credibility because we have failed speed
bumps when offered and the traffic will be ours to face : "
This is another step too far by the Board to scare homeowners into voting "yes " on
bollards as a solution .
To the sixth bullet, "More traffic is coming our way : "
That certainly is likely to happen ; however, when and how much is still speculation .
More traffic in Woodbridge could make for slower traffic and discourage those
looking for a quick way to travel from Eagle Road to Locust Grove , or vise versa .
To the seventh bullet, "Tolerate the inconvenience of your commute : "
This is not a very persuasive statement for Woodbridge residents who will absolutely
be hit with a considerably longer commute , as well as how it sounds to prospective
buyers should a homeowner decide to sell their house .
3
To the eighth bullet, " Safety of our children is at risk : "
Safety of everyone is at risk, whether you ' re walking, biking, etc . Children on
sidewalks are as safe as most sidewalks are anywhere . Children crossing the street are
already at risk, and crosswalks have been denied, even though they would make clear
and distinctive places for walkers and bikers of every age to cross . Two stop signs
(one where Bowstring meets Woodbridge and one where Thornwood meets
Woodbridge) , along with compatible marked crosswalks would make
Woodbridge Subdivision more safe for all. It would also make Woodbridge
Subdivision less desirable to use as a thorough fare , definitely slowing down the
people who are just passing through .
To the ninth bullet, "Home values will also increase if we have bollards : "
This was another far-reaching assertion by the Board . There is no likelihood of that
being true, and in fact would most likely decrease our home values . You can find
studies on both sides (depending on what point of view you ' re trying to prove) . There
is just as much, if not more likelihood that our property values will decrease when
people see an entrance/exit to our subdivision blocked from use by bollards , to say
nothing of it being a complete eyesore .
To the tenth bullet, "Unprecedented that Mayor is speaking to ACHD about bollards : "
We don ' t know if that is true or not; however, while we appreciate any help the mayor
can give to Woodbridge Subdivision, it is not the Board ' s responsibility to use tactics
such as this to sway homeowners or renters to accept bollards . Homeowners will be
the ones living with the decisions made .
On a final note, the management company for Woodbridge Subdivision sent out emails on
behalf of the Board providing homeowners/residents with the Voting Results of the bollards
issue, a copy of which is attached . This information was also posted for Woodbridge
Facebook participants (all do not participate) . The email message stated that the voting
tally had already been sent to the City Council . It appears there were some unique
calculations done in order to determine the percentages . At first read, you might believe that
79 % of Woodbridge voted "Yes " which is not true .
In more plain language, Woodbridge Subdivision has 279 homes .
Of those 279 homes , 166 "YES " votes were collected .
166 favorable (YES ) votes out of a total of 279 homeowners equal a total of
59 % favorable votes in Woodbridge Subdivision .
Result : 59 % of Woodbridge voted in favor of bollards (unknown as to how many of
those votes came from homeowners and how many came from " others ") ,
(NOTE : This calculation is the same one used previously for determining the outcome
of votes for traffic calming measures) .
4
Getting a 59 % favorable vote from our Woodbridge homeowners (and unknown amount of
renters) would not even have qualified Woodbridge to get speed bumps in our past voting for
traffic calming, per ACHD .
Here is an example of how the percentage of "YES " votes sent to the City Council is
incorrectly calculated :
Let ' s say the Board collected a total of only ten ( 10) votes and all of those were "YES " votes ,
the result would have been calculated by the Board as a 100 % favorable vote by Woodbridge .
That, of course, is erroneous . All homeowners have to be part of the equation, whether they
choose to vote yes , no , or remain a non-vote .
Also concerning, we have no idea how many Woodbridge homeowners have current emails
registered with the management company, or have access to Woodbridge Facebook. After the
neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, March 4 , 2026 , the Board used email , posts on
Facebook, and selective door4o -door attempts to ascertain votes , without knowing how many
of the emails and Facebook posts had been received or seen by homeowners . As stated above,
we have been provided no information as to whether the votes were from homeowners ,
renters , or non- owner persons residing in Woodbridge homes . It is very possible that the
homeowners of these rental properties were never even made aware of this voting issue . All
homeowners with rentals in our subdivision should have been informed of this important vote
and its possible effect on their property value . If the Board accepted a renter vote, the
homeowner of that property would not be able to vote, even though the homeowner is the only
one with the financial investment.
Thank you for your help and consideration in these matters . We appreciate your thoughtful
concern about Woodbridge and the issues we face .
Sincerely,
Celeste Fox
Homeowner
Barbara Owens
Homeowner
Jan McIntyre
Homeowner
5
.0
>
N tq
Aft
MEMO
ti
4
. ..i mmina
rat Io
L -o U
10
C 0
. 3 a. CL -o a U
Noma
o -o
C.
c o a ) r o
-a .c
�r � o
Noma ed)
MI IIv-I
O
Omni
L Q.
U
U U ai
tp wo
•w O
t0 O 'O mom
L Q.
L = o CL a
r
a I ai ,� 'a
. _
"Now
C .
Noma
mmmo
nomad
O
O
W
E
C p -
u • .- a
E
• - . I: p
+�
eF� voic (n
_I _
c� c
' o *�
0
o 00
U L
c �o M
3 � - :fl
"J C ua
U) . CU uymmum
o
a� M =:
-� va
»� .o 3
c
O
_ 0
fu
. -� C.
.�
mmoo
cm
OL)
ONO Noma
o w Law 4- e Law
cu q > CL
r
�'
RAI" I G
, SOLUTION FOR
' WOODBRIDGE
Woodbridq HOA & Community Members
BOLLARD VOTES
On February 24th 2026 , the Mayor asked us to get our
neighborhood 's votes on Bollards on the Magic View entrance ,
EebruaryJJ.'h flyers we placed in all resident's
* mailboxes
e.• ®U�V®� March 4th a Town Hall Meeting was held -
G�3� advertised on flyers and posted at entrances
* March Wh- 81h HOA Board "hit the pavement"
and knocked on doors to gather votes
After 3 + "knocks" we left notes on doors
HOW WE
p asking them to email the HOA their vote
GATHERED March 12 « - MGM sent an email to at [
VOTES residents asking them to email HOA their vote
VOTING There are 279 homes in
RESULTS Woodbridge
We gathered 210 votes which
means 75 % voted
Of the people who voted , 79 %
voted in favor of Bollards
Of the people who voted , 21 / . . .
voted agaLnsA the ' Bollards
.�N0
oUTU
1 oil
1 y$