Laserfiche WebLink
1 It <br /> • <br /> Mayor Mario Biagi n®f. <br /> ai<e Mayor Wm.J.Stange) Reaped MINUTES <br /> ifih1�""""�j.. C 1 TY COUNCIL <br /> Councilmen C <br /> Brenton C.Britschgi N <br /> Robert H.Bury <br /> WW1 Joint Meeting <br /> Gerald R.Chandler CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Marguerite Leipzig Community Activities Building IMO <br /> Bill Rhodos November 24, 1981 <br /> Joint Meeting <br /> The Council of the City of Redwood City met on this date with the Planning <br /> Commission at 7:30 p.m. in the Community Activities Building, Mayor Biagi <br /> presiding. <br /> Councilmen present: Britschgi (arrived 7:40 p.m.), Bury, Leipzig, Stangel, <br /> Mayor Biagi <br /> Councilmen absent: Chandler, Rhodes <br /> Planning Commissioners present: Castle, Poncia, Rowe, Smith, Spillers, <br /> Wandmayer, Chairman Claire <br /> Planning Commissioners absent: None <br /> Officials and staff present: Assistant City Manager Smith, City Attorney <br /> Schricker, Director of Public Works Addiego, Planning Director Schroeter, <br /> Traffic Engineer Gee, Deputy City Clerk Reggetts <br /> Sharing of costs by developers for traffic improvements <br /> Mayor Biagi referred to the City Manager's Report of November 20, 1981 <br /> transmitting background material from the Director of Public Works and <br /> Planning Director, relating to requirement that developers participate in <br /> Mill <br /> costs to upgrade traffic signals or other traffic improvements in the area <br /> of a development. <br /> Mai <br /> Mayor Biagi noted that neither the Council nor the Planning Commission <br /> wishes to discourage developers from coming into the City, and suggested <br /> that the choice to be made is whether the costs for upgrading traffic <br /> signals is something that should be charged to the developer or shared by <br /> all taxpayers of the City. <br /> Discussion by Council and Planning Commissioners followed regarding the <br /> several projects where such cost-sharing had been made a condition of <br /> approval of the development, among them, developments along Veterans <br /> Boulevard, and in the area of Middlefield and Main Street; whether there is <br /> a consistent policy in applying the requirement; what criteria is used to <br /> determine the developer's responsibility in sharing the cost. <br /> Director of Public Works Addiego provided background information to clarify <br /> some of the concerns expressed, explaining that the City had established a <br /> policy some time in the past that, where it was found that a development <br /> would have an impact on traffic, the developer was required to pay his <br /> share, and that this policy has continued for the more recent developments <br /> consistent with past requirements; that some streamlining would be desirable <br /> so that the costs would be spread more equitably, but that if the developers <br /> were not required to participate in the costs, the burden would be on the <br /> taxpayer. He cited as examples the Maple and Walnut intersections with <br /> Veterans Boulevard, eventually Jefferson Avenue and traffic signal projects <br /> in Redwood Shores, which at an average of $130,000 per project amount to <br /> over $1 million. The intent then is to not place this burden on the <br /> taxpayer, but to require those whose developments cause an impact on the <br /> traffic to bear their fair share of the costs to upgrade traffic controls. <br /> When it become apparent that downtown development was on the increase, his <br /> department developed a schedule of estimated costs for signals based on <br /> expected "trip ends" in order to arrive at a reasonable charge to <br /> developers. <br /> Jnt.Mtg. <br /> twig.Council/Ping. <br /> 11/24/81 <br />