CCMIN011984 - Laserfiche WebLink

BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 84:21) dated January 9, 1984, regarding this matter. Mayor Butler declared the public hearing open on this item. Mr. Robert Allen, 223 Donner Avenue, Livermores Director on BART Board, represent- ing the Valley, reviewed the history of the BART extension routes including the Pleasanton area. He also reviewed the latest BART report which discusses the rail- road route as well as the freeway route through Pleasanton. He stated that BART desires an orderly expansion of the region. He advised that the Metropolitan Trans- portation Commission will be holding public hearings regarding federal funds and approvals, and that residents and officials of the Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin areas should act G.uickly in order not to be left out of the rail transit funding. Mr. Allen stated that without MTC's endorsement, the BART rail line to Livermore and Pleasanton might not ever get built. He advised the dates for the MTC public hearings are January 12, and January 26, 1984. He urged Council to make forceful statements for BART rail service to the Valley at these public hearings. He also requested that a freeze be placed on any development for a period of 9 months to one year on the projected station sites to allow BART ample time to buy the property if necessary. He briefly reviewed the selection of station location sites and required parking space. Mr. John Plotts, 1221 Orloff Drive, presented a petition, signed by 407 residents, which read as follows: "The undersigned residents of the City of Pleasanton hereby register our objection to the proposed utilization of the SouthernPacific Spur Line between 1-580 and the north and Valley Avenue on the south for a BART, light-rail, or other transportation system". Mr. Plott also presented a witten report elaborating on the following: (1) what is best for the Valley; (2) economics of the two alterna- tives; and (3) residential objections. He summarized by stating that economically and geographically the residents believe the freeway alternative is the logical one and it mitigates all of the residential objections. On behalf of the 400 people who signed the petition, the vast majority of other Pleasanton residents support this position. He requested Council to exert all of the influence they have with the BART Board of Directors to oppose the railroad route and to support the freeway route. He stated that perhaps this does not have to be an either/or situation, and the peti- tioners are not against Livermore's wishes for a downtown system~ but he does not want Pleasanton residents and their residential areas to pay the penalty for that. He sug- gested that other alternatives should be evaluated that would satisfy everyone. Mr. David Poo!e, 4117 Hazelhurst, stated he does not want BART in his back yard, and that the promosed use of the Southern Pacific tracks would not service anyone in Pleasanton. Ms. Marion Suliteanu, 4131 Crisfield Lane, stated she supports the comments of Mr. Plotts. She stated there is logic for use of the corridor route. Mr. Jeff Farudo, 4131 Peregrine Ways stated he has used BART service since 1965, and would concur with active support to the MTC to do all possible to get BART service to the Valley. He added that parking is a critical factor, and that BART should be near the freeway corridor. Mr. Mike Bernardo, 1362 Orloff Drive, stated he is against BART going down the Southern Pacific tracks. He stated there is a discrepancy in the report relative to the two routes and to the station sites. He stated that the freeway route is more in keeping with the General Plan of the 'City of Pleasanton, and will avoid the displace- ment of any buildings. He stated he felt consideration should be given to the other alternative routes listed in the report. He stated he felt Pleasanton should come to terms with Livermore relative to a route selection. He added that BART service is needed and should be acquired as soon as possible. 11. 1/9/84