Laserfiche WebLink
<br />way. He said that the easiest concept is for a deep tunnel underneath all the cities and it is <br />achievable, but the question is can the cities afford it. <br /> <br />Regarding a question about when the decision would be made, Mr. Chang said the aerial <br />report already identified the option as high speed rail only and excluded Caltrain. This <br />Council Member expressed her appreciation of the work done and liking for the goal to not <br />divide the community and she wanted to know if this was unique to Redwood City or <br />regional? Mr. Chang said the common goal is the same for accessibility and connectivity, <br />but that the preferences within that goal may be different, such that some cities may be <br />okay with aerial and have less concern because they do not have it going through a core <br />downtown area like Redwood City. <br /> <br />Another Council Member said she wanted to acknowledge what some committees have <br />done with a lot of workshops, and Redwood City had three public meetings, and that <br />people are very interested. She also wanted to acknowledge the work Mr. Chang does <br />with the Council subcommittee. She asked, on behalf of community members, why the <br />deep tunnel option is only for high speed rail and why it did not include Caltrain. Mr. Chang <br />explained that cost, the fundamental design concept in high speed rail that if there is no <br />need to go so deep to not do so because the deeper the depth, the greater length of time <br />needed to get people out in the event of any emergencies. Caltrain was excluded because <br />it has so many stations and the preference is not to stop with high speed rail. She asked if <br />a covered trench method is used, who has right of way above it and would it be accessible <br />for the City and not just at the crossings. Mr. Chang did not know but believed it would <br />require further investigation and discussion and that it would not be opened up to local <br />agencies to use it. She asked with the trench option, would there be no need for a grade <br />separation at Whipple Avenue and to have the road at grade? Mr. Chang said that <br />Brewster, Whipple and Broadway are already able to remain without grade separation, but <br />if it does not go down, and it becomes aerial, past Sequoia Station, it would have to go <br />down early enough to avoid Woodside Road. If it does not go down early enough because <br />Woodside Road/Highway 84 is too close, there would need to be grade separations in <br />those three locations. <br /> <br />Other questions and discussion included the grade separation, the underpass for Jefferson <br />Avenue, freight at the Redwood City Junction needing to match, what Atherton and Menlo <br />Park are interested in, has the County considered other options, the North Fair Oaks area, <br />keeping the community united and not divided further, and ensuring that the process is as <br />transparent to the community as possible to promote involvement and to leverage <br />expertise. Mr. Chang said that Menlo Park and Atherton want to go below ground, <br />preferably a deep tunnel, and they are open to a covered trench. In response to a question <br />about County discussions, he said that there was a County Supervisors' meeting last week <br />and they expressed similar concerns and he believed they will also be sending a letter. <br /> <br />Another Council Member thanked Mr. Chang and staff for their work and commented that <br />rail in Redwood City is a very complicated engineering challenge, given the creeks, the <br />Dumbarton Bridge, Woodside Road interchange, and that there is no one answer for rail to <br />go through this city. He cautioned against talking in absolutes as more information is <br />coming, and to focus on what is right, adding to the quality of life, and then considering the <br />costs. <br /> <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD <br />MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />June 14, 2010 <br />PAGE 6 <br />