1968 339- 485 _ 1-8 to 4-15-1968

Browse Search

F the existing Bayshore Freeway; developing an easterly route as a parkway instead of a Freeway, were discussed. Councilman Henderson suggested that an additional phrase be added in that "Redwood City would prefer Bayfront Freeway not be shown, but if shown on the plan, it should be shifted Easterly," inasmuch as it had been Council's representatives' position that Bayfront Freeway should be shown on the map even though it was a minority stand. In reply to questioning whether pole lines could eventually be placed underground, City Manager advised it was considered not to be feasible fron an engineering standpoint as well as economically. In reply to further questioning if relocation of the PGE towers had been considered City Manager advised of the legal suit which had been instituted by Foster City regarding relocation of poles, and which had been denied by the Courts. 6. The San Carlos Airport should be shown on the plan, as should other county and community airports insofar as they would constitute a regional air traffic complex. Planning Director advised Preliminary Plan maps only indicated major airports and didn't show relationship to small airports which was felt should be indicated, besides fact that should SanCarlos Airport decide to enlarge, it might be diffi- cult to get funds if not shown on the Preliminary Maps. City Manager commented that the San Carlos Airport had been purchased by the County and would suggest that name be changed to indicate airport only located in San Carlos, not owned by them. 7. The State College Site in Edgewood Hills should be added to the plan as an institutional category. It was noted that high schools and junior colleges were not on the Preliminary Plan, but State colleges were, and that State College site in Edgewood Hills should be added. After review of conclusions presented and views of those Council members favoring plan in concept but not in certain specific areas, Councilman Henderson moved to accept Planning Commission's recommendations, with exception that Item 5 be changed to indicate view submitted by the County Board of Supervisors in their evaluation summary relating to the Bayfront Freeway (Item III(B) Page iii) Motion lost for lack of a second. Councilman Granger moved to accept Planning Commission's recommendations as stated, seconded by Councilman Petersen. Councilman Petersen stated his second of the motion only would mean that a General Regional Plan is needed, even though he disagreed with many other ideas proposed in the report. Councilman Henderson advised that she would oppose motion as it would leave no flexibility concerning the Bayfront Freeway. JAN 29'68