CCMIN091807 - Laserfiche WebLink

at IsabeVStanley and would continue to stop in downtown Pleasanton, as it does now. Councilmember Sullivan said if the high speed rail bond was approved in 2008, what would be the actual construction timeline. Ms. Nelson said the decision must first be made on how the high speed trains approach the Bay Area. The first segment of the train would be built by 2030, so it is fairly a long way off, and the entire system is most likely 2050. Councilmember Sullivan said he was supportive of the idea of enhancing public transportation and rail transportation in particular and somehow connecting BART to Ace to make it more effective, but he felt the Council needed to be more involved in the process. Ms. Nelson reiterated that high speed rail and regional rail were two separate studies and said the City is not required to make comments on the EIR for high speed rail, as it appeared most of it is obviously new and there are many questions. The other opportunity and the reason there is a BART Director in the audience is that BART is very interested in having the Tri-Valley be unified in wanting to continue study of BART expansion in the Tri-Valley area and this option of having a regional connection at Isabel/Stanley is a new idea that has not yet been studied and the hope is that the Tri-Valley will come together and say it is interested in further study of options. She said BART is looking for the City's support so they can move forward on the next phase of studies for the Tri-Valley, with the idea that this is the last phase. Mayor Hosterman felt the Council would make comments by the 28"', as there are a number of issues and concerns compiled. Public Works Director Wilson asked the Council to focus more on the EIR and the three alternatives of high speed rail to comment on. First is the Pacheco Pass. From an environmental standpoint and impacts to the City, staff believes there are none. On the Altamont only, staff has some major concerns regarding impacts; the elevated rail through the middle of town, the many trains coming through, and staff would like for Council to comment on this in terms of the impacts. Regarding the third option; the Pacheco Pass and the Altamont, he said the idea of depressing through Pleasanton has not been looked at, and he felt it was not feasible because it must run through the middle of a channel. It is probably that if we want a grade separation, it will need to go up in the air due to the channel. The other option which was the I-580/1-680 corridor which is the elevated track that goes down I-580 and I-680, does not have the impacts to downtown, but there may be visual concerns of the Council and he suggested the Council comment on the EIR prior to the 28~'. Councilmember Thorne felt the depressed grade is interesting, but he voiced similar concerns and did not feel it would work. He also believes the community would never support elevated rails in the downtown or in the City; however, he would support additional study on a rail in the area, as he felt mass transit was important. Councilmember McGovern said in looking at studying the matter and the policy advisory committee's support for the high speed rail, with the two criteria that no significant right-of-way takes and no major aerial structures through Pleasanton, she asked who defines what is significant right-of-way takes and major aerial structures, which is her biggest concern. She was uncomfortable with the verbiage. Also, having served on the triangle study, she was gun shy about majorities saying what would be built. She questioned whether or not others could actually determine what happens in the community if the City of Pleasanton studies this further. Public Works Director Wilson said the policy came from the PAC itself, which is subject to interpretation. He felt the intent from staff's standpoint is a major structure is anything elevated City Council Minutes 10 September 18, 2007