03/13/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Miller noted that alternate lA at grade was the least expensive option, and he asked whether 5th Avenue could be made into an overpass or underpass to enhance traffic flow without involving a major expense. Mr. Weishar said an over- or underpass would require additional space, and he added that Conger Street would have to be dealt with, which might be quite costly. Mr. Gleason noted that required slopes would mean a greater impact. Mr. Miller asked whether signalization could help. Mr. Weishar said that could be done, but staff wanted to avoid signalization in that area. Mr. Obie asked how many businesses in the area would be affected. Mr. Weishar said the area contained four large industrial buildings, but he was not sure of the number of businesses. Mr. Obie said that impact could be examined further, adding that drive time for trucks might be improved substantially. Responding to Ms. Bascom's question, Mr. Weishar said access to businesses on 5th Avenue from town would be via Tyinn Street shown on the map. Mr. Weishar reviewed alternate lA elevated, which he said also would go over southbound Highway 99 because of the truck problem. He said the major advantage was elimination of all but one intersection before Seneca, and the major disadvantage was the lack of access into the area from the east and from the north. He also described costs, saying some of the cost for that option would be for construction of a Tyinn Street. Mr. Weishar described the 5th/7th Couplet option. He said staff analysis indicated a need to widen and rebuild the streets to accomodate traffic loads, adding that four lanes probably would be needed for the mix of local and through traffic. He reviewed the advantages, adding that while no businesses would be displaced, operations of some could be hampered or affected. He also reviewed the disadvantages in the summary. Mr. McKinley said impacts had been discussed, but no ROW costs were available yet. Mr. Rutan said he had understood that the council previously had finished looking at alternatives for the EIS, adding that he had not thoroughly examined the alternatives presented today. He said the complexity and implications of the project were difficult to review so quickly. Mr. Gix said all the alternatives being presented today had been identified in the original EIS. He added that alternate lA had not been addressed in the same detail as others, and some councilors had been uncomfortable about that. He said the supplemental EIS could address and identify alternatives within the same corridor or considered previously, and while the options being presented were not the only ones, they were considered by staff to be the most feasible. Mr. Gleason said the supplemental process now was occurring and technically did not include the City Council, but the council specifically had requested a review. He said any radical changes at this point could require going through another supplemental process or EIS. Mr. Rutan said he did not want to hold up the process, but he thought the information should have been available before todayls meeting. Mr. Obie said he thought an opportunity should be provided for councilors to respond, and he asked whether staff preferred to put that on a future agenda. Mr. Gix said some suggestions could be incorporated in looking at design solutions without resolving details at this step. MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 3