|
<br />standing that aesthetic value was one of the benefits of the project, yet she had
<br />heard of no proposal to put the overhead wires underground, That should be considered
<br />now rather than after the improvement work is done, she said. Traffic Engineer .
<br />answered that EWEB would consider underground installation if property owners were
<br />willing to pay the costs. There was no overwhelming support of that, he said, and sug- I-B-3
<br />gested the issue be taken up with EWEB.
<br />Bob Hannigan (unidentified) stated his objections by questioning staff's auto count I-B-4
<br />on Highwayl99N on which the need for the improvement was based. He also questioned
<br />staff response with regard to possibility of an alternate bike route - ". ..the rail-
<br />road wasn't interested..."-as well as the bike count. He quoted bike counts taken by
<br />other than staff and said the estimated cost of the project in his mind did not justify
<br />"continuing the status quo" for traffic movement, both auto and bike. To expend the
<br />funds would be foolish, he said, until such time as use of bikes and traffic count
<br />forcasts w~rrant such an improvement, especially one that would not change the existing
<br />number of traffic lanes. He felt the need would be questionable for the next five years.
<br />With regard to curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, he said he would not contend they were
<br />not needed;' but he felt there should be no new development on that street allowed un-
<br />less curbs, gutters, and sidewalks were included as a part of the development. At
<br />this time, he said, there was no demand for such items.
<br />With regard to beautification, Mr. Hannigan continued, the staff had indicated the
<br />major objective.of the improvement was for safety, drainage, traffic flow. If that
<br />was the case, he asked, why not make more room for traffic flow - the proposed im-
<br />provement would retain the present two lanes. He said those attending meetings with
<br />regard to the project were predominantly opposed to the work, and he didn't think
<br />the proposed expenditure was needed for the amount of work that was proposed. He
<br />said the city would not lose the federal funds if the project was not done now, as
<br />stated by staff, because the money could be used on other projects. Anyway, he said, e
<br />if funds are not available now, should the project be dropped, that would not pre-
<br />clude funds being available at some future time. With regard to assessments and
<br />staff comment that owners of abutting property would be paying for something less
<br />than a 44-foot paving, Mr. Hannigan asked the Council to consider the "adequate
<br />roadway" already in place for which property owners have already paid either through
<br />taxes or land acquisition. In summation, Mr. Hannigan.reiterated his belief that the
<br />amount of money proposed for this improvement was far in excess of the work needed
<br />in that area.
<br />Jim Watters, 734 Highway 99N, pointed to the increased traffic generated by develop- I-B-5
<br />ment in outlying areas and said he thought the money would be better spent on increas-
<br />ing the number of good travel lanes, acquiring additional right-of-way for that purpose
<br />if part of the right-of-way was to be used for bike and pedestrian traffic.
<br />Margaret Hedrick, 1325 Andel Avenue, owner of property abutting the proposed improve-
<br />ment, felt the need had not been shown for the improvements proposed, that it was not
<br />a logical or practical proposal, and that it would be an overwhelming burden for prop-
<br />erty owners who would be assessed. She thought there. might be a need in the shopping
<br />areas for some additional control to facilitate pedestrian crossing. Other than that,
<br />she felt the project would be turning a heavily traveled highway into a "community
<br />boulevard ~,
<br /> Public hearing was closed and a short recess was taken. I-B-6
<br />Upon reconvening, Al Williams, traffic engineer, answered questions raised. He said e
<br />staff traffic cQunts indicated 26,000 vehicles per day between Barger Drive and Prairie
<br />Road on Highway 99N. With regard to storm drainage, he said, the major cost would
<br />be involved in getting rid of the open ditches north of Fairfield. State Highway staff
<br />10/11/76 - 6 l.\~\
<br />
|