Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS <br /> None <br /> ---------______n______-------------------------------------------______n______-----------______n________n__----------- <br /> 5. BOARDS, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> None <br /> ---______n______-------------------------------------------______nnnn______nn______-----------______n______-_n__- <br /> 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> None <br /> __n_______n_______n____________nn____-______nnn_____nn------------------______n____________n______n______---- <br /> 7. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST <br /> A. Presentation on Route 84 Extension; Guest Speaker, Edgar Ugarte, San Mateo County <br /> Transportation Authority; (702) <br /> Council Member Hartnett left the dais at this time due to a possible conflict of interest. <br /> MEMO 2/10/98 <br /> REPORT: Engineering and Construction Manager Patterson, February 9,1998 <br /> Project Study report, Prepared by the San Mateo County Transportation <br /> Authority, January 30, 1998 <br /> Manager Patterson introduced Mr. Edgar Ugarte, Program Manager, San Mateo <br /> County Transportation Authority (TA), who presented five alignment alternatives for <br /> Route 84 Extension from Marsh Road to Seaport Blvd.lWoodside Road. The Report lists <br /> the five Alternatives as part of a larger project that was approved through Measure "A" <br /> which included the extension, reconstruction of the Woodside Road interchange, double <br /> decking Woodside Expressway ITom 101 to El Camino Real, and building an interchange <br /> at Maple Street. <br /> Mr. Ugarte said the purpose of this transportation study was to create a parallel relief <br /> route between Marsh Road and Woodside Road interchanges that would also mitigate the <br /> traffic congestion at those two Highway 101 interchanges. He added that Alternatives 4 <br /> and 5 would not mitigate the traffic impacts on the two interchanges at Highway 101, and <br /> therefore were dismissed ITom consideration. Mr. Ugarte said Alternatives 2 and 3 were <br /> very similar, with slight differences in commercial and real estate properties that would <br /> have to be acquired, but did not offer any net improvement in local access, and were not <br /> compatible with other improvement plans, and were also dismissed. <br /> REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 FEBRUARY 9,1998 <br /> MINUTES Page No. 248 PAGE 6 <br />