Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Ira acknowledged and thanked the Council Ad Hoc Committee Members, consisting <br />of Council Members Foust, Gee, and Pierce. <br /> <br />One Council Member commented on the difficulty in following and visualizing the <br />recommendations and options, and that graphics would be helpful. He had questions on <br />the trench options, the creeks, the freight trains, keeping the streets at grade, and what <br />neighboring cities prefer and what the impacts may be for them. Mr. Chang said that the <br />preference is to try to keep the street at the existing grade, and the Caltrain and High <br />Speed Rail trains at either under or below street level, and that all intersections would need <br />to have grade separations. Mr. Chang said that it would be a challenge for freight trains to <br />share the track with Caltrain, and if it is at grade, it would be easy to catch. If there is a <br />change at Redwood Junction to either below grade or aerial, there would have to also be a <br />change up or down for the freight train to catch it. They do not yet know the -magnitude <br />particularly through the Chestnut area that is mostly Redwood City and unincorporated <br />(San Mateo) County areas. There was a question about the removal of the berm option. <br />Mr. Chang said that staff concluded from their analysis that with the berm option, they <br />would have had to raise or widen it and that that both Redwood City and San Carlos were <br />happy with the removal. <br /> <br />Another Council Member commented on the good work done with the community and <br />putting together the information. He spoke about keeping in mind for the future the <br />possibly of beginning to daylight some of the creeks, especially Redwood City creek in <br />terms of going under the creeks. He asked about how this tied into any work the County <br />has been doing in the unincorporated area. Mr. Chang replied the impact for the County <br />would be that Caltrain has to stay at grade through the unincorporated area past Fifth <br />Avenue. In response to questions about studying internal processes, internal planning and <br />any funding by the Authority for them, Mr. Chang said they are not aware of that but they <br />can ask; he said that each agency has been funding it themselves. In response for <br />clarification on what the perceptions and expectations are once the letter is sent in terms of <br />moving forward, Mr. Chang said that each agency's preferences and proposed options will <br />impact each other as the Authority collects the information and they will have to look at how <br />each individual city's options can be linked together. Therefore, we cannot fully anticipate <br />what will or will not work, and to keep as our goals for Redwood City to not divide the city <br />and to keep everything below. <br /> <br />Another Council Member had questions about how deep Cordilleras Creek is in relation to <br />the how deep the trench will be when it crosses underneath. Mr. Chang said the creek is <br />15-20 feet below surface, or that it has to be 20 feet from the top of the trench box to the <br />existing grade, and that the creek will be somewhere in between. He said the creek is now <br />about 5-7 feet in those areas. In response to questions about daylighting, Mr. Chang <br />agreed it was possible. This Council Member also had questions about the multiple <br />vertical options to go up and down, the associated costs for them, and the start date for <br />obtaining federal stimulus funds. Mr. Chang said that about 3,000 feet of land is needed to <br />transition from one vertical height option to another, and that staff recommends that once <br />the track is down, to stay down for a longer distance unless there is some reason it cannot <br />continue, such as for the freight train. Staff's preferred option is for a deep tunnel but they <br />know this is harder for HSR to accept versus the need to take care of Caltrain some other <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD <br />MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />June 14, 2010 <br />PAGE 5 <br />