01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Donna Cabanne said the downtown rail alternative is unreasonable due to the proximity to schools, businesses and residences. She also opposed the Southern alternative, as the required tunneling would destroy valuable and irreplaceable habitat. The elevated track through Altamont Pass would also decimate habitat and endanger birds already threatened by the wind towers. She urged the Authority to consider an alternate route either from San Francisco through Martinez or Pleasanton's original suggestion along the 1-580/1-680 corridor, asked if the Southern alignment would require tunneling under a portion of Ruby Hills, said the assertion that Livermore prefers this option is premature, and stated that the proposed phasing of a 50-year project is not permitted under the California Environmental Quality Act. Mary Roberts concurred with Council and staff's comments; the downtown proposal is absurd and she agreed the 1-580/1-680 alignment warranted further consideration. She had strong concerns relating to the Southern alignment, which bisects over 4,000 acres under conservation easement in the south Livermore Valley and requested that the analysis look closely at the economic consequences of all options. She strongly supported getting people out of their cars, but not at the expense of valuable agricultural and rural lands. In response to Ms. Cabanne's question, Mr. Ogden stated that the alignment through Ruby Hills would be a bored, not dug, tunnel and would not create significant surface disruption. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio closed the public comment. Councilmember McGovern requested the City Attorney's opinion regarding the potential loss of local control. Mr. Lowell said the question would require further examination, but the City does have many avenues to explore whereby it can register comments and complaints. If need be, the City does have the ability to resort to litigation and legislative fixes. Mr. Fialho advised that community awareness would be a valuable tool. He also stressed the importance of making the City's position very clear to Supervisor Haggerty, who represents the City in a regional capacity. Councilmember McGovern said she would like to see additional alternatives, as well as the 1580/1-680 alignment, as part of the environmental review. Councilmember Sullivan asked if the project falls under the jurisdiction of CEQA. Mr. Gimpel explained it would follow both the state CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act processes simultaneously. Councilmember Sullivan said that is one venue to exert the City's influence regarding the range of considered alternatives. He said he would like to see considerable community outreach and some sort of public workshop to help educate residents. He generally agreed with the comments of his fellow Councilmembers. Councilmember McGovern recalled that when high-speed rail was initially discussed, there was information regarding the extent of elevated track required to make it viable. She requested that this information be made available at the workshop in order to provide the public a more relevant understanding of what was originally under consideration. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said it was alluded to that certain options were taken off the table because of the difficulty associated with dealing with the respective entities. She advised the Authority to consider Pleasanton equally as difficult in this respect. She said she could not City Council Minutes Page 9 of 12 April 19, 2011