01 - Laserfiche WebLink

would require BART to purchase a portion of the site from the County. Mr. Quint said that various types of easements would be considered if that route were chosen. He noted that the current design utilizes only a small stretch of the site and is a worst -case scenario. Councilmember Thorne thanked him for referring to the Chain of Lakes as such, rather than a quarry area. He said it has the potential to be an incredible recreation area with housing and perhaps light industry and advised caution when considering that particular route. Councilmember Sullivan inquired about the rationale of the Chain of Lakes and Stanley Road alignment. Mr. Quint said that alignment has been studied for over 30 years and most recently in the regional rail plan as the shortest route for connecting BART to ACE. He said that was the primary interest and that other alternatives were added throughout the process and as a result of suggestions by the City of Livermore. Councilmember Sullivan said the route through El Charro and Stanley does not appear to be the shortest. Mr. Quint said different alignments were studied to reach Isabel /Stanley, with this pursued in the greatest detail. Councilmember Sullivan said he would like to better understand the benefits of that route versus those that are more northerly. He presumed the City of Livermore desired the economic benefits that could result from TOD in its downtown and requested an analysis of its benefits to Livermore versus regional benefits from remaining on 1 -580. Mr. Quint said the DEIR studies land use impacts but that the City of Livermore, through its own workshop process, has obtained consultants to examine the regional benefits of all 5 sites. Councilmember Sullivan said is seemed more appropriate for BART to do so. Mr. Quint directed him to the Land Use section of the DEIR which considers the potentials for each site. Councilmember Sullivan asked him to expand on his earlier description of the construction timeline. Mr. Quint had no answer, said it is heavily dependent upon funding, and estimated at least another two years to create the project specific EIR. Councilmember Sullivan requested a broad estimate such as 10, 20, or 30 years. Mr. McPhartland said 10 or 20 years out is a strong possibility; that he once heard an estimate of 24 years, and it is directly proportionate to whether or not the goals and incremental parts of the project can be met. He reiterated that projected costs are in 2009 dollars and said that funding will of course be a primary hurdle. In order for any of the alternatives to work there must be political will and consensus from all parties, funding, short- and long -term ridership, and an intermodal connection with at least the ACE train to sustain that ridership. To Councilmember Sullivan's earlier question, Mr. McPhartland said the benefits to the City of Livermore are a political decision that he cannot speak to. BART has only been able to project ridership at that location, but the citizens of Livermore have provided a good deal of input on the pros and cons associated with this. There was a strong desire to avoid impacts that would destroy the current downtown ambience, which is how the concept of undergrounding the Portola alignment came about. He conceded that it would be feasible although very costly. There has also been discussion as to whether or not any parking lot at all in the downtown area would be recommended, again to preserve the existing ambience. He noted that the stand- alone alternatives could only be incremental shortstops in the larger project because neither would meet all of the identified goals. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 13 December 15, 2009