06/06/1966 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NEW BUSINESS: Select System Road Project No. 14 (Cont'd.): �) fall two feet short of the State's requirements,and failing Council approval of the additional width will mean loss of these funds. Engineer Cook reported on his efforts to obtain a deviation from the State's requirements for road widths, referring to his letter dated March 30, 1966 requesting a general type approval for 11' travelled way lanes for Collector Roads, with each project to be submitted for specific approval, and his submittal, letter and plans dated May 4, 1966 of such a specific project on Altamont Road (Champagne Aeights Unit #1), and an additional contact in Sacramento by the City Manager; however, State approval was not given on the requested deviations. In considering that additional monies will be available in the future (possibly 525,000 annually), the Town will be faced with the problem of complying with theaddedwidth, and Engr. Cook stated three solutions present themselves: 1) Each year face the problem of width or lose the money, returning it to the State, or 2) approve the deviation in width and require certain streets to be tiro feet wider and use these funds, or 3) transfer the money to the County, which in turn would be allocated to the Town's non -expressway allocation under the 1961 County Highway Bond Program in a sum equal to the amount transferred to the County; however, the County reserves the right to express priority. Discussion followed on the above presentation and comments were heard from the following citizens: W. D. Barkhau, 26861 Altamont Road (favors added width to Altamont Road) Mrs. J. Micheletti, Becky Lane (opposed to any widening) D. Janssen, 27440 Sherlock Road A. Lambert, developer of Champagne Heights, Los Altos Councilman Aiken opposed meeting the State's requirements in that it would set a precedent and weaken the hard fought struggle to retain the Town's rural roads. He proposed transferring the monies available from Project No. 14, approximately 1k9,200.00, to the County for equal credit, while continuing to make a coordinated effort to obtain State approval of existing road widths. Councilman Fowls, however, was of the opinion, that an additional two feet on Altamont Road would not set a precedent or bind future Councils if the money were used; if proven unsatisfactory, further monies could be refused. Councilman Aiken took the stand that "I would refuse the money entirely J before agreeing to wider roads." -4-