Clairmont Heights Civic Association

Notes from the CHCA/MANA Traffic Control Meeting of February 5, 2009 by committee member Kathryn Firago. About 55 people attended the meeting held at the North Decatur Presbyterian Church on Medlock Road.

John Maynard, Vice-president of CHCA, opened the meeting with an explanation of the difference between “traffic control” and “traffic calming.” He stressed that traffic control is what we are trying to do in controlling the entrances and exits of our area, which would reduce the number of cars dramatically here without having to change anything within the interior of the neighborhood. Traffic calming is addressed street by street and attempts to slow speeders. This is a very difficult process to get through the county and is not what we are attempting here. Traffic control should have some calming effects in that we assume a lot of speeders are those from outside our neighborhood.

John made an impassioned plea for working together to accomplish this goal. 200 people from our joint neighborhoods worked on getting this proposal ready for the county. He asked that rather than saying one didn’t like the plan only, please offer suggestions to improve it. Traffic studies are available on the CHCA website. He introduced other members of the committee: Kathryn Firago, Vice-president of MANA, Theresa Same and Brenda Prather, also of MANA.

Several comments were made that suggested we deliver the draft of the ordinance to every neighbor and John stressed that we had done this by hand delivering to every mailbox in CHCA and MANA and included this information in newsletters; the draft has been available on the website and through listserv emails. For those without email, let CHCA and MANA know and we will attempt to get information to them as it comes out.

A resident expressed concern about gridlock on nearby arterial streets. John Gurbal of the Department of Transportation is aware of our efforts and is trying to address it with improved intersections and integrated traffic lights.

It was noted that Webster Drive now has “No parking” signs to discourage the glut of parkers on that street.

Legitimate visitors and workmen would be able to get through the intersections at the times in question with a valid destination address.

(After the meeting, a suggestion was made that there are no restrictions on right turns onto Desmond from Clairmont in the a.m. or p.m. rush hour, nor any restrictions on left turns onto N. Superior in the a.m. rush hour or right turns onto it in the p.m. rush hour. These could be viable options for service people and caretakers to enter the area without risking a ticket.)

A comment was made that this discussion was spurred because Emory was planning to build a new parking deck at Clairmont Campus, which would increase the parking area there to accommodate 2000 vehicles, an additional 1200 spaces to what is there now.

A resident asked how many people are living in MANA and CHCA who work at Emory. (We have emailed Adele Clements, our Emory liaison to see if she has that information. She will let us know.) In the past, Emory has expressed the wish that its faculty and staff who live in our area use the Cliff shuttles or walk or bike to work if at all possible. Information was given at the meeting that it costs Emory $10,000 per parking space and that encouraging walking and alternate forms of transportation to work is well worth it to them.

A complaint was made by a resident who got a ticket visiting her mother in Leafmore Hills after that neighborhood put up restrictive signage. The response was that they did not have resident exception nor expect to work closely with the police enforcement of the ordinance as we plan to. The same resident stated that these are public roads that anyone should have the right to drive. Yes, but when public safety is affected, an attempt must be made to control what traffic we can.

This plan is unique in DeKalb County. We can expect this to take a year or two in the deliberation stage and implementation. It will not be rushed.

One resident felt there would be extra cost to us for police enforcement of this policy. That is not the case.

Another resident raised several points. He felt that this made us seem like we were instigating a gated community and he didn’t like that. He stressed that Emory is a good neighbor and a big part of why our property values are good. This plan seemed to be a heavy-handed “anti-Emory” approach to something that was not that big of a problem. He felt there should be some recourse if a person were ticketed in error as he felt would certainly happen. The response was that Emory has been involved with us from the get-go. (Adele Clements was at the meeting’s start, but regretfully, had to leave early.) This is not gating the community, merely limiting access to potential cut-through traffic at peak hours of the day. Another resident spoke to the fact that the impact of traffic is different depending on where one lives and what one’s habits are. Some are adversely affected every workday twice a day while others can be blissfully unaware that there is a problem. Another resident spoke up to say that she lives on Eastway and cannot walk with her child during certain times of the day as she is concerned for their safety because of the traffic volume. The suggestion for recourse for bad ticketing was one that John felt warranted action and could be written into the ordinance. Perhaps we could have a form to send to the county to attest that someone actually did come to our home during the questioned time and get the ticket stricken.

It was reiterated that additional striping (Desmond at Reckle recently striped) was not the best idea per Mr. Gurbal as it encourages people to use the streets more like a highway.

A resident wanted to stipulate that the money Emory is giving to the neighborhood for sidewalks be used for additional police enforcement. That money has already been allocated for only the sidewalk implementation, so we cannot make any further demands on it.

A resident commented that she was grateful for the work put into this proposal and ordinance and wanted to remind everyone that the reason we love living where we do is a quality of life issue. We want to be able to live in a quiet, walker-friendly place where our safety is not in question. Neighborhoods with the types of restrictions that are proposed should be admired and respected. (Spontaneous applause broke out here.)

One resident felt that if we addressed limiting traffic on Blackmon only, which is the outlet for much of the afternoon traffic, the bulk of the problem would be solved. It was pointed out that this is a piecemeal approach and we would prefer to be more comprehensive with perhaps a greater effect. Starting signage with the Blackmon area could be effective, however.

What options were considered?

1. Signs
2. Enforcement
3. Pass ordinance
4. Tax incentive district

We cannot deputize Emory police as we had once hoped.

Concern was expressed to be sure this plan/ordinance was available to everyone. It was suggested we do a referendum by mail. It was stated that we can try to do that, but it is a big job to deliver to every home in the neighborhood. Are there any volunteers? (If you would like to be involved, let me know – Kathryn Firago, MANA)

Jeff Rader had been present throughout the meeting but only spoke at the end to say that this is new territory for DeKalb County and the commissioners will give our proposal due diligence and it will be well-vetted, well-proven. He stated that our committee had been very conscientious, and worked very hard. He does hear the different comments being raised and will continue to be involved in this process. The debate reflects the strength of the neighborhoods. He stated that the commissioners would be deliberative, fact-based and honest with reasons for or against this plan.