Laserfiche WebLink
C. Bayfront Canal Drainage Improvement. (613) <br /> Recommendation: <br /> This is an information-only staff report. <br /> Mr. Ekern provided an update on the outreach that staff had done in the last few <br /> months. In his view, it made sense to slow down a little bit and re-evaluate what was the <br /> best long term approach to an ongoing problem that was difficult. According to him, <br /> most of the water was not generated in Redwood City but from Menlo Park, Woodside <br /> and Santa Clara County. He added that there wasn't one solution that would provide <br /> 100% protection because of all the variables. He offered his commitment to listen and <br /> continue the dialogue to better assess solutions and options with other jurisdictions. His <br /> goal tonight was to apprise the Council of where staff was on this matter and confirm <br /> that further engagement was part of the plan so that a viable solution would be found <br /> that included financial contributions by otherjurisdictions. <br /> One Council Member suggested another letter to local jurisdictions inviting them to <br /> come to the table. This Council Member would like the letter to welcome input to <br /> improve regional collaboration on an important issue such as this one. <br /> Mr. Ekern was hopeful that with him being new, he could engage in a fresh dialogue <br /> with the stakeholders. Another Council Member opined there was a true desire to work <br /> on this, but the neighboring jurisdictions had just been hit by major staff changes and <br /> there was a loss of momentum. This Council Member noted that there was a meeting, <br /> which various officials from neighboring jurisdictions attended, and there was <br /> awareness that this was not a Redwood City problem. This Council Member further <br /> stated that we needed universal solutions throughout the entire region. Another <br /> Council Member said that to date the conversations had focused on what was possible <br /> and he remained optimistic. This Council Member was hopeful and he wanted to <br /> reiterate that the East side was very much in the forefront of these conversations <br /> because Council was aware of the flooding that had occurred in this area. He added <br /> that the reason why Council had a subcommittee on this was because it cared and <br /> wanted to find a solution but there was no silver bullet. Another Council Member <br /> reiterated that the stakeholders were the County of San Mateo, Atherton, Menlo Park <br /> and Woodside. <br /> One Council Member inquired about access to the 5� Ave. pump station and if that <br /> would include upgrading the gates. Mr. Peter Vorametsanti added that staff was waiting <br /> to start a project at the pump station. This Council Member recalled that there were <br /> funds under the Capital Improvement Project to this end. Mr. Vorametsanti added that <br /> over 1 million dollars had already been spent on this. Council discussed the issue of <br /> the pump station and access around that area. Mr. Ekern added that the City does <br /> have an easement for access but construction was what was being reviewed. He <br /> added that the goal was not to move water from one side of the freeway to another side <br /> but to find a comprehensive solution. One Council Member underscored the fact that <br /> any solution will not mean shifting the problem to another jurisdiction. This Council <br /> JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD October 24, 2011 <br /> MEETING MINUTES PAGE 8 <br /> MINUTE BOOK NO. 63 <br /> Page No.421 <br />