06-16-1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(6) Cut a new street through from:Warner at Rene, which would connect Rene and Flora; close the median at Pacific; and put in a signal at Rene; annual cost of $6, 750. (Initial cost $48, 000. ) (7) Signal and crossing guard at Rene without a street cut-through, annual cost of $5,200. (Initial cost $27,000. ) (8) Adjust school attendance area to include the area south of Warner only. If school bond issue passes, a new school will be built and opened for the school year two years from now. The Public Works Director stated that in view of the last alternate, the Public Works Department felt it would be imprudent to select any of the other alternate suggestions; that the answer is to modify the attendance area boundaries; and that the recommendation of the Public Works Department is To retain the present crossing guard protection at Warner and Pacific until a new school is build. William Burns, attorney representing the parents in the Jefferson School area, stated that he did not think the school bonds would pass and the solution recom- mended by the Public Works Director was unacceptable. He said he had spent some time during the past two weeks educating himself on warrants; that the U. S. National Warrant Guidelines do not,coincide with the City's; and that the manual he studied indicated that most of the warrants are met. He recom- mended that a semi-actuated traffic signal be put in. He stated thatthey were used quite commonly; that this type of signal is what this intersection needs; and that it is what the government manual recommended for this type of inter- section. Mr. Burns added thathe thought a signal should be put in immediately on an emergency basis. Joe Stevens, 2101 West Hall, spoke regarding Alternate Suggestion (6) and also stated that there are two major traffic entries into the Cherrydale tract. A discussion by Council followed, during which Vice Mayor Herrin stated he would have to take the approach recommended by Staff. Councilman Brooks stated that he didn't think Staff had come up with a solution and that he was going To reverse his position and be in favor of a traffic signal at this point. Council- man Markel expressed the opinion that something should have been done before now; that we should have gotten together with the School Board to do something about the situation; that there had been a laxity; that he was not in favor of the signal because of what he had heard and read; that he was in favor of the overpass system, which is used by Los Angeles; that the problem had gone long enough and needed to be solved now; that he was disappointed that a solution seemed to be no closer now than it had been two weeks ago. Councilman Patterson stated that probably the best solution would be that no children cross there and the only way that could be accomplished would be to adjust the school boundries which is not ~ possible for two years;that he supported the Staff in their professional deter- ] minations and the report they gave 100 %, but thatwe had now reached the point | where it is a political question because of the number of accidents that have taken place at the intersection. It was moved by Councilman Patterson, seconded by CounciLman Brooks, to authorize installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pacific CITY COUNCIL - 248 - June 16, 1969