Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />7.A <br />Page 17 <br />o What does It take for communities to get the,solutlons they want, given the price tag, <br />clty deficit and ROW impacts with construction <br /> <br />San Francisco - Rincon HftI CAe, 4/19/10 <br />. Meeting Format; Presentation, QuestIon & Answer <br />o Attendees: 20-25 people <br />o Main points/Issues: <br />o 16th Street underpass - Redevelopment Agency staff person stated SF will oppose an <br />alternative with 16th Street depressed. <br />o SF representation on TWG/PWG - coordination with City Departments <br />o 4th and King redevelopment <br />o Jurisdiction from 2nd Street to Transbay <br />o Want to schedule more meetings In San Francfsco - will coordinate wIth Redevelopment <br />staff <br /> <br />Mountain View City Council HST Meeting, 4/19/10 <br />. Meeting Format: City Council Meeting <br />o Attendees: 3 council members; 4 staff; 6 public <br />.. Main points/Issues: <br />o Questions about who pays for what, how to get public to understand alternatives <br />o Requesting CHSRA for money to cover staff time and consultant costs <br /> <br />San Catlas Community Meetlngl 4/22/10 <br />. Meeting Format: Open House, Presentatfonl Questfon & Answer <br />. Attende~s: 40 residents, 2 city staff <br />. MaIn points/(ssues~ <br />o Constructablllty of alternatives: how to build aerral viaduct, remove berm. Keep Caltrain <br />runnIng and not impact Old County Road? <br />o San Carlos Transit Village: cornmunlty disagreement surfaced regarding project impact <br />to Transit Village land rather than existing neighborhoods to the east of Old County <br />Road, given promises for landscape buffer when the berm was built, that the Transrt <br />Village project is not built, the land is vacant and owned by Samtrans. <br />o Questions about how/when the economic Impact of the project on the cities (l.e. if <br />property values fall because of aerial structures, which impacts property tax revenues)} <br />wlll be considered in the decision-making? Who Is responsible for that kind of analysis? <br /> <br />Palo Alto Community Meeting, 4/27/10 <br />. Meeting Format: Open House} Presentation, Question & Answer} Breakout Session <br />. Attendees: 111, 5 couocH members, 2 planning {:ommissioners <br />. Main polnts/ Issues: <br />o Preferenc~ for tunnels and underground soluttons, dislIke for aerIal structures and <br />associated noises vibration and visual Impacts <br />o Concern about how property owners are compensated for lost value due to noise and visual <br />impact both during and after construction, with ROW width rmpacts for trench and cut and <br />cover alternatives. Concern about homes not at risk for eminent domain, but those near the <br />. ROW. Need answers now to these questions. Need ~o Include pro perty costs In analysIs for <br />equal cost comparisons among alternatives. <br />o Concern that two tracks for Caltraln wUl limit future servIce with no baby bullet <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />i:'/ <br />