My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC MIN 06-08- to 12-21-1981
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
CC MIN 06-08- to 12-21-1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2015 9:05:52 AM
Creation date
3/18/2015 9:01:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
6/8/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
171
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
//� <br /> Y <br /> AGENDA (continued) ACTION TAKEN (continued) <br /> rum <br /> REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER (continued) REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER (continued) <br /> Item No. 1 (continued) future potentials, while Phase II will cover <br /> investigation of precise alignments in greater <br /> depth, including refinement of cost estimates <br /> and physical facilities required as well as <br /> development of representative line <br /> cross-sections. Engineering would be Phase <br /> In response to questions, Mr. Coleman said <br /> that the kind of "ordinance" he had in mind on <br /> page 54 of the summary report would be a <br /> condition of building permit approval; that <br /> TSM (Traffic System Management) could be made <br /> a condition of approval of development, citing <br /> the experience of the City of Thousand Oaks; <br /> that provision could be made for income from <br /> TSM; that developers in Redwood City <br /> contribute to traffic signals; the possibility <br /> that TSM deed restrictions may reduce, or ! <br /> could increase, value of property; and the <br /> encouragement by prospective employers of <br /> vanpooling, flex-time, etc. <br /> Discussion followed and City Manager Fales and <br /> Mr. Coleman commented and replied to questions t <br /> concerning the fact that Redwood City is the <br /> first city on the Peninsula to address the <br /> cumulative effects of development on traffic; <br /> the fact that regional, state and federal <br /> agencies must cooperate; the fact that other <br /> Peninsula cities have proceeded with <br /> development without regard for its impact on <br /> iftswg traffic conditions; the fact that CalTrans <br /> figures were used instead of ITE figures <br /> because national trip rates are generally too <br /> low for California; the unique increase in <br /> jobs in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and <br /> resultant traffic increases; whether a report <br /> by SRI in the San Jose Area which projects an <br /> 11% decrease in traffic by 1990 could be <br /> accurate; the fact that gasoline prices may <br /> not rise much and that technological <br /> improvements in automobiles relating to gas 1 <br /> consumption may cause increased traffic; <br /> whether it is realistic to consider increasing <br /> Bayshore Freeway to ten lanes since CalTrans <br /> does not have the funds or apparent <br /> inclination to improve freeways; and the <br /> necessity of recognizing traffic problems in , <br /> order to identify and solve them eventually. 1 <br /> Councilman Bury, Council representative to <br /> ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) <br /> reported that consideration has been given by <br /> that agency to encouraging location of jobs in <br /> the area where.more housing is available than <br /> on the Peninsula. <br /> In response to question, Mr. Coleman advised <br /> that consideration was given to encouraging <br /> people to live near their jobs, but that even <br /> if they wished to do so, there are so many new <br /> jobs in the area that they could not all be <br /> filled by people able to live nearby. <br /> Reg.Mtg. <br /> 7/20/81 <br /> Page 2 <br /> • <br /> rl- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.