06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Wick said there was one cost-cutting installation for owner modified systems, allowing fewer sprinkler heads if water flow was maintained. He said a dollar-value - couldn't be put on life and that in most high-rise buildings people were going to have to have help in getting out. The highest ladder in the department can go only to the ninth floor, he said, beyond that it would be impossible to give hlep. Rollcall vote was taken on second reading of the bill. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17395. I-A-3 D. Traffic Diverter Policy Planning Commission recommended adoption of traffic diverter policy statement and procedure as contained in its official report of May 19, 1975. Copies of that report were previously distributed to Council members and shared with neighborhood organizations. Public hearing was opened. Edwin St. Clair, 652 West Broadway, thought the traffic diverter a valid traffic control device, something that was needed to preserve existing residential areas. He noted the controversy over installation of a diverter in the westside area and said procedure for installation should be taken from the political arena if it led to controversy every time one was to be put in. e Helmut Plant, 2034 Alder Street, asked what the policy was. After the policy statement was read, Mr. Plant thought one should be installed on Alder Street because of the number of accidents occurring at 20th and Alder. He asked postponement of action on the issue when Mayor Anderson confined discussion to comments on the policy and procedure only. Thorn Chambliss, 1510 Mill Street, chairman of the West University Neighbors, said that organization was unanimously in favor of the traffic diverter policy. He thought adoption of the policy was of positive value in preserving the livability of residential areas. He said he agreed with one point brought out in Planning Commission hearings and that was if instaJ.lation of diverters did nothing more than move traffic to other arterials, then they might eventually cause more problems than they would solve. Rather than having that effect, he hoped the policy would be a continuing effort to discourage automobile traffic. . Berniece Willoughby, 1140 Adams Street, asked that serious consideration be given installations in terms of where the traffic would be diverted. She said some traffic on the westside was moved to other routes where it constituted a dangerous situation for children. Preston Lance, 1145 West Broadway, suggested four-way stops as a method of slowing traffic. And Mrs. Theodore Adams, 972 Madison Street, was opposed to the present installation on Madison Street, saying there was no reason for a diverter at that location, that it was a short street, and there was no way for traffic to get through. When the Mayor reminded speakers again that the question was whether traffic diverters were an adequate instrument, Mrs. Adams said they were not, they would not help and people in her neighborhood were not pleased with them. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Assistant Manager said that staff saw the diverters as an effective tool, that with increased neighborhood refinement planning and problems of traffic spilling over from arterials into residential areas, there needed to be an understanding with the Council :~3S 6/23/75 - 5