01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember McGovern asked which Tri-Valley alternatives would be put forward for the EIS. Mr. Ogden said the hope is to narrow the study to 2 alternatives. One of the issues is that in order to pursue the Southern alternative, the U.S. E.P.A. Corps of Engineers requires an adequate range of alternatives that considers an urban solution for comparative purposes. He acknowledged the City's position, but said they may not have the choice to avoid putting forward an urban alternative. Councilmember McGovern requested preliminary information on design elements such as track elevation. Mr. Ogden said the project is still in the very early preliminary stage and the engineering work that would provide that information has not been done. Councilmember McGovern asked and Mr. Ogden confirmed that the Pacheco Pass high-speed rail project is going forward. She asked if the Altamont Route service would equal that of Pacheco Pass. Mr. Gimpel said "no." Councilmember McGovern said Pleasanton has invested tremendous time and effort in its downtown and the proposed alignment directly disrupts the lifestyle that the community values. Stacey Mortensen, ACE Rail Executive Director, stated that both SJRRC and the Authority serve as access points to work on these issues. The City of Livermore and several locations in the Central Valley have expressed concerns similar to those of staff and the Council. She explained that in order to proceed through the environmental process, they are tasked with carrying the generally preferred project as well as an urban comparative. She assured the Council that both they and staff have been clear. Councilmember Sullivan asked which governing body made the decision that high-speed rail service would travel through Pleasanton. Ms. Mortensen explained that there is no one responsible agency. The decision is an evolution of several agencies, and was validated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. In addition, Pleasanton is represented by 2 members appointed to the board that oversees ACE Rail service. Councilmember Sullivan discussed the traditional range of project alternatives considered by an environmental impact report, including no project. He voiced concern related to the attempt to narrow the options prior to that review, particularly when arbitrary reasons are offered for dismissing certain options. He would like a greater range of alternatives to be considered, including the 1-580/1-680 alignment and requested more information on project funding. Mr. Gimpel said this is a joint venture between the Authority and SJRRC, with various funding sources. Ms. Mortensen discussed the sales tax measures that have been the basis of rail funding relationships for some time. Councilmember Sullivan asked how they intend to access the Southern Pacific right of way, if that alignment were ultimately chosen. Ms. Mortensen did not answer the question directly. She stated that the route was initially selected because it was an intact corridor at one time. Additionally, it deals with Union Pacific's unwillingness to allow trains running at upgraded speed and frequency onto their right of way. She said she found greater sense in running along the existing Union Pacific corridor as opposed to downtown, and suggested they might be more successful negotiating that access at a more local level. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio opened the item for public comment. City Council Minutes Page 8 of 12 April 19, 2011