9/5/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 5 1989 Bou� 7 PAGE provision of Alternative III by "sharing" in the cost of right- of-way and the required mitigation. This appears to be a "no-win" situation for the County, because: I. It will raise the County's cost of Phase III of the northern extension of Indian River Boulevard. And, 2. It will delay the project while the existing mitigation plan for impoundment #22 is revised and the additional permitting is obtained for the remainder of Parcel No.110. It appears that certain elements in the city have become so distracted by the idea of a river front shopping area that they have lost sight of the real reason for replacing the bridge. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to state the views of a large segment of the community that believes that it is imperative that the replacement bridge provide the best LOS (shortest evacuation time), at the least cost, with the least adverse impact on both the people and wildlife living in the area. Sincerely, U� C. C. Kleckner Mr. Kleckner continued to stress that the majority of the traffic coming across the bridge from the east will be heading towards the center of the city. He estimated that 2/3 of the traffic on Alternate #3 will be going south on that little stretch of the Boulevard which is actually about 2,000' long, and we will be adding a traffic light with about 10,000 people in a queue trying to make a left turn. Mr. Kleckner believed a lot of disinformation has been given to the people living at Vista Harbor. He did not believe those people have considered that only about a block north of them, they would be driving 160 pilings or that there would be an illuminated high level bridge on their horizon with 10,000 more trips a day past their front door. He contended that the cost for an extra lane there is not included in the DOT project. The DOT estimate for Alternate #3 is about 21.7 million and for Alternate #2 about 18 million, or a difference of 3.6 million, but he personally feels it is a great deal more than that. No mitigation cost is included, and the R/W needed would be much more expensive. Also, in regard to R/W for parking, Mr. Kleckner disputed the fact that with Alternative #2 there would be less parking for any business other than Bahama Joe's. He contended that Alternate #3 would offer a poorer level of service, costing more, and with more environmental 46