Laserfiche WebLink
6.1.A. - Page 73 <br /> staff and she agrees with moving forward and bringing something that the community <br /> will embrace. She sees this as a win/win opportunity and supports moving forward. <br /> Mayor Aguirre asked for Public Comment. There was none. <br /> M/S Seybert/Ira to accept the staff recommendation, with the awareness that the <br /> agreement will be back to Council for approval. Motion carried unanimously by <br /> electronic vote. <br /> C. Resolution Supporting the US 101 - Woodside Road (State Route 84) <br /> Interchange Project and a Grant Application to the San Mateo County <br /> Measure A - Highway Program <br /> Recommendation: <br /> 1. Adopt a resolution supporting the project, authorizing the filing of an <br /> application for program funds available under the San Mateo County <br /> Measure A— Highway Program, and the assurance to complete the project. <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 15207 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD <br /> CITY SUPPORTING THE US 101 — WOODSIDE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 84) <br /> INTERCHANGE PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR MEASURE <br /> A HIGHWAY PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE US 101 — WOODSIDE ROAD <br /> (STATE ROUTE 84) INTERCHANGE PROJECT AND STATING THE ASSURANCE <br /> TO COMPLETE THE US 101 — WOODSIDE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 84) <br /> INTERCHANGE PROJECT <br /> 2. By motion, authorize the City Manager to execute related grant <br /> documents and accept funds if awarded. MINUTE ORDER 12-156 <br /> Mr. Ekern provided details on why Redwood City is submitting an application for grant <br /> funds including two cycles of grant funding. He said the City is willing to put up nearly 1 <br /> million dollars to support this action. He shared a schedule that staff is working by and <br /> he would also like the project to be driven by staff and supervised by staff and not the <br /> Transportation Authority. He noted that these are figures by today's standards but in <br /> 2017 this might be a different amount. Mr. Ekern covered the five alternatives that will <br /> be considered and staff tried to highlight the salient features (presentation on file). <br /> One Council Member wanted to have the five alternatives and the rationale behind each <br /> one available to Council online. This Council Member would like to see an analysis of <br /> each of these. Mr. Ekern said staff is willing to sit down with Council and explain each <br /> one. This Council Member said he would prefer to see the analysis posted online <br /> because this will impact all residents and they should be able to have the same <br /> information. Mr. Ekern said the analysis has been done and it could be posted online for <br /> the benefit of the community and he said that the next two years are for this type of <br /> public review and environmental analysis. This Council Member would like staff to think <br /> out of the box in this region as well since the City owns the corporation yard. Another <br /> Council Member wanted to have staff come back and present some of the options in a <br /> public meeting. Mr. Ekern said he would be glad to do that. <br /> Public Comment <br /> CITY COUNCIL July 9, 2012 <br /> MEETING MINUTES PAGE 8 <br />