Ordinance No. 20257 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ik@. Klope having concluded his presentation~ the Hearings Officer invited members of the public t{J speak. The first attendee tO speak was Ms. Debra Jeffries, of 3800 Delta HighWay. Ms. jeffreies does not oTM property subject to assessmem by the local improvement ~listrict. Her first question con~er~ed ~ statement that Mr. KloPe had made concerning some repairs that w~uld be made to the street paving. Mr~ ~op~ explained in more detail that, because the contractor had not performed satisfactory~ City was requiting the contractor to make extensive repairs to the road surface~ Mr. the Klope eXplained that this was being required because the surface was poorly la/d, was not done as specified by the city and was causing surface drainage problems. Ms. Jeffries suggested that the C~ty should wait to do the assessments until the repairs were made. Mr. Klope expta/ned that while the City could have chosen to wa~t~ th/s would have meant higher charges for the assessment. All the work for which an assessment might be done had been Completed and a delay would only mean an accumulation of interest charges for the ~ropre owners. Ms. Jeffi4es next turned to her concerns about the bike path installed along Ayers Roa& She explained that she felt that it failed to comply with city policies. By her reading city policies required that a bike path be at least five feet in wSdth. In her opinlo~, thee ~onstructe~ bike path violated pot~cy because the surface available for bikes was less than five feet wide. ~his was, she bxpl~dned, because, since the path is raised above the level of the street and the sloped area dropping from the level of the path dov~m to the street wa~s within the portion me~ured to be ~ ba~ of the bike path, the t~sable portion of the path was actually less than five feet wide. Ms. Jeffi4es wSshed for an ~pinJon from &e city attorney ~oncern/ng the perceived violation of city policy and the propriety of assessing Proper~y owners f~r improvements that did not, in her comply w~th existing cig~ policies. Ms. Jeffries also stated her concerns about the safety of the street design. She noted that some of the traffic medians did not have signs directing traffic to the r~ ght. She felt that, because the raised reflectors along the road margkn were double sided, traffic at night 'would be confused and might cross the center line and begin traveling on the wrong ~ide of the street. This was m~te more l~kely because some of the reflectors were missing. Ms Jefffies expressed her concern that this could be made worse if there were two vehicles traveling in opposite directions at night. Under certain circumstances it m~ght create an impression wi~ the t'wo drivers that a head-on collis~on eminent. Ms. s was also concerned about the tack of Speed limk signs on the street. Ms. Jeffries also question Mr. Klope~s statement that the capacity of Ayers Road had been enhanced by the improvements. She did not feel that the traffic carrying capacity of the Road had been increased at all. Ms. Jeffries closed her statements with a request that the Council deviate from its usual pa~tern of considering Only the written record. Ms. Jeffries requested that the CounCil should take publi~ input. She feels that~ contrary to suggestions from the Engineer~ public input was Sk~ewed, ~n that the i~itial design w(~:k involved people who