Laserfiche WebLink
154 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked Mr. Elliott what effect the widening of the <br /> street by four feet in the other direction would have on the bridge <br /> alignment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Elliott replied that it could be done with a little work <br /> but that he would be reluctant to move the street any farther than <br /> four feet. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired, in view of the fact that the community <br /> would probably oppose the removal of the trees in the area, how <br /> much closer the road would come to the trees if the alignment were <br /> moved four to six feet in the other direction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the trees that are closest to the road <br /> would have to be cut down if the road were moved to the north by <br /> four feet. He added that the road can be moved a bit where the <br /> trees are farthest away from the road, from Mr. Gridley's property <br /> to the end of Stanley Boulevard; however, there is no room for <br /> expansion opposite Mr. Irby's and Mr. White's properties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Earl Augusta, property owner on 3363 Stanley Boulevard, <br /> indicated his support for the staff's recommendations because <br /> although he stands to lose from six to eight feet of his property <br /> if Del Valle Parkway is widened, it would be a great improvement to <br /> his property. He expressed his sympathy with Mr. Irby's and Mr. <br /> Gridley's situation; however, he would not support widening Stanley <br /> Boulevard to the north if it would mean removing the black walnut <br /> trees. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner inquired if the bridge required under Alternative <br /> 2 is part of the interim or ultimate plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the four-lane bridge is part of the <br /> ultimate plan. He explained that Alternative 2 shows the best way <br /> to keep as good a street geometrics as possible to build a new <br /> parallel bridge on the west side of the existing bridge, which <br /> would entail an additional right-of-way in that area. Modifying <br /> Alternative 2 to allow the widening of the existing bridge equally <br /> on each side would mean bringing the road back so it aligns with <br /> the center line of the existing bridge. This would result in a <br /> worse street geometrics which the Engineering Department does not <br /> recommend. <br /> <br /> - 16 - <br /> 12-11-90 <br /> <br /> <br />