The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 BART Extension Study Livermore/Pleasanton CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 9, 1984 SUBJECT BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis Final Report EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from BART dated December 20 , 1983 ; Letter from Bob Allen dated December 20 , 1983 ; Letter from Ben Fernandez dated December 28 , 1983 ; City Council Position Letter dated October 26 , 1983 RECOMMENDATION( See below FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time DESCRIPTION On January 17 , 1984 a public meeting will be held at the Alameda County Fairgrounds Cafeteria in Pleasanton to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis Final Report . (A copy of the Final Report has previously been delivered to the City Council under separate cover) . As you may recall , the City Council has previously taken a position with respect to the BART Extension Study as it impacts the City of Dublin, as indicated in the letter of October 26 , 1983 which the City Council approved and sent to the BART staff . In addition, during the General Plan study sessions , the City Council reemphasized its desire to coordinate development with a BART parking lot for the station site proposed in downtown Dublin. Since the City Council ' s last discussion of this item, the City has received a letter from Robert Allen, Director, District S , Bay Area Rapid Transit District, requesting the City to freeze development for the next 9 months in the area of the proposed station sites . The City has also received a letter from Ben Fernandez on behalf of a joint chamber of commerce committee from the Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin indicating the positions of the three chambers of commerce with respect to the BART extensions to the Tri-Valley Area. BART ' s final report does not make a recommendation with respect to the route most desirable once the rail system leaves the City of Dublin. The report identifies two basic route alternatives from Hopyard Road to the east. The final report also recognizes some of the concerns that the City Council expressed in its letter of October 26 , 1983 with respect to the parking lot location at the Dublin station to the north of the freeway. However, no firm recommendations are made in the report with respect to ultimate configuration of the station site . It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council review its position letter of October 26 , 1983 to determine whether or not it still accurately reflects the City ' s positron at this time . It is also recommended that the Council direct Staff to modify that position paper if necessary, and prepare to present remarks on the part of the City for the public meeting to be held on January 17 , 1984 . Lastly, it is recommended that the City Council direct Staff to respond to Director Allen ' s request to freeze development in the area of the proposed Dublin station site . It ' s important to note that Director Allen ' s request, is a personal one and is not written on behalf of the entire BART Board of Directors . ----------------------7-7-------------------------------------------------- // COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 4�• !Z> bi R T BAY ARE., iAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street Oakland, California 94607 Telephone (415) 465-4100 December 20, 1983 ROBERT S. ALLEN Mr. Richard Ambrose PRESIDENT City Manager JOHN H. KIRKWOOD City of Dublin VICE-PRESIDENT P. 0. Box 2340 KEITH BERNARD Dublin, CA 94568 GENERAL MANAGER Dear Mr. Ambrose: DIRECTORS Subject: BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis Final Report BARCLAY SIMPSON IST DISTRICT Enclosed for your review and distribution are 25 copies of the BART NELLOBIANCO Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis Final Report. 2ND DISTRICT I am providing the number of reports requested by you at the last ARTHUR J. SHARTSIS Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting held in October. Please 3RD DISTRICT distribute the enclosed documents to the appropriate interested MARGARET K. PRYOR groups and individuals. Since financial constraints limit BART's 4TH DISTRICT distribution of this document, it is also suggested that at least ROBERT S. ALLEN one copy of the report be made permanently available to the public 5TH DISTRICT at a convenient location such as the Planning Department, the JOHN GLENN City/County Clerk's Office, or the Community/Agency Library. 6TH DISTRICT A public meeting will be held at the Alameda County Fairgrounds WILFRED T. USSERY cafeteria in Pleasanton on Tuesday evening, January 17, 1984 at 7:00 ' 7TH DISTRICT p.m. which will give interested citizens an opportunity to comment . EUGENE GARFINKLE on the BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study Update Analysis 8TH DISTRICT Final Report. BART requests that each TAC member, by its usual JOHNH. KIRKWOOD notification process, announce the January 17th meeting throughout 9TH DISTRICT its area of responsibility. Any questions regarding this document, or the Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension in general , should be directed to me at 465-4100 extension 587 or BART Project Coordinator Jim Evans, at extension 372. Sincerely, v Richard C. Wenzel Project Manager cc: H. L. Goode, BART Technical Advisory Committee: B. A. Neustadter, BART Richard Ambrose, Dublin W. T. Kritikos, BART Gerald Peeler, Livermore J. P. Evans, BART Robert Harris, Pleasanton Bruce Fry, Alameda County James Dicks, CALTRANS bA R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT y 800 Madison Street P.O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 94604-2688 J I Telephone (415)465-4100 11..1. December 20, 1983 The Honorable Peter W. Snyder ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS Mayor, City of Dublin Clt Hall PRESIDENT P. O Box 2340 NELLO BIANCO Dublin, CA 94668 VICE-PRESIDENT KEITH BERNARD GENERAL MANAGER Dear Mayo �yder: You should have by now a copy of the LPX (Livermore- DIRECTORS Pleasanton Extension) Update Analysis final report. A new route - when adopted by the BART Board early next year - BARCLAYSIMPSON would replace the existing I-680/Fairgrounds route adopted ISTDISTRICT in 1974. NELLO BIANCO 2ND DISTRICT In essence the new LPX route leaves our Fremont line ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS south of Bay Fair, enters the Rt 238 corridor, stays in the 3RD DISTRICT I-580 Median through Castro Valley and over Dublin Hill, and MARGARET K.PRYOR continues along I-580 to the railroad overpass east of Hopyard 4TH DISTRICT Road. This much is basically in Phase I of our Extensions ROBERT S.ALLEN Program. 5TH DISTRICT JOHN GLENN East from that overpass the report presents two alternative 6TH DISTRICT routes: Freeway and Railroad. The Railroad alternative would WILFRED T.USSERY serve the West Livermore station site already acquired by the 7TH DISTRICT City of Livermore for transit purposes. The Freeway alternative EUGENE GARFINKLE would miss that station and aim more toward the proposed new 8TH DISTRICT town at Las Positas. JOHN H.KIRKWOOD 9TH DISTRICT We will be seeking public input on this choice next month. In the meantime, as BART Director representing the Valley, I urge you to freeze development as best you can for the next nine months where we show proposed stations sites. Figure V-2 (page V-11) portrays the proposed Dublin station layout. Figure V-3 (page V-20) shows the Pleasanton station if the Railroad route is chosen. Figure V-4 (page V-21) shows the Pleasanton station if the Freeway route is chosen. In 1980 about 800 of the voters opted for BART Rail over Bus Only (Measure Q, November ballot) . By freezing development at these station sites you will help to make it all possible. Very truly yours, Robert S. Allen Director, District 5 /I COOPER McKENZIE MURPHY POST OFFICE 80X 1030 PLEASANTON,CA.94566 PHONE:415-846-4423 December 28 , 1983 City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 Attn: Richard Ambrose, City Manager Dear Rich: Enclosed is a recent resolution made by the combined Chambers of Commerce of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin regarding BART extensions to the Tri-Valley area. It was the unanimous deci- sion of the three Chambers of Commerce that two stations be included in the first phase to the Tri-Valley area. It is our feeling that one location will not serve the best interest of the community, BART, the business community and our citizens . We will have representatives on hand at the 1/17/84 public hear- ing on BART locations . We will also be at your disposal to discuss our findings . We look forward to a cooperative effort in achieving this greatly needed service to the Valley. Best regards , COOPER gaKENZIE MURPHY Ben Fernandez BF:mw Enclosure Itftl/vouMeyrnNN _ rAGENT -®. TC�: WT f=oam of ki roctcrs oU the "etronol i tnr, Transportation rnTmission '-enrnitte on ^'eL fjAPT Stations A FXters ions . SUP? : Station locations for cities of Pulrl in and Pleasanton , nlamp&a r'ounty , r'al ifornia . ^epresentatives from the Chambers of Commerce from the cities of Publ in , Pleasanton , cP, Livermore have completed a series of meetings regarding RAPT Station locations , and unanimously agree that two stations are noeded for Dublin-Pleasanton . WP recorrmenrl that the Duhl in station he located in the area. hetwoen I (,SO and San Pamon Valley nowIeyarn interchange on 15SO in PuM in and the rleasonton station `•c located in the area vrst of the Proposes' r 'acOnda i nterrhanve at 1 scn . Those two stations would as'enuately serve hoth ""blin 0 M easanton . alleviating the necessity of an additinnal station in the "itv of Pleasanton President -nuhl in 'C'harnher of C'or.-merce President -Pleasanton Cham`� .r of Commerce/ 1 C_l ' Pres i dent -r.i vermore "bamhor of Commerce Oci_obt?r 26, 19:13 itichard C. bvenzel, project i•ianager Bay Area Ra Adi Transit u i s tz ict 800 Madison Street Oakiand, CA 94607 Dear i4r. iienzel : In your Septemoer 29 , 1983 letter you asked for written cci*aments fro-i the -City of Dublin on the dreaSC final report for the Livermore-Pleasantcr, 3:RT e:ctonsion study. The City Council ac its October 24 , 1963 „leering, discusseu the report and developer: a number of coi,uments about the issue. Obviously; in the time alloteu, the City Council and the Staff have :laid an opportunity for only a preli;ninary -review of the report and expect to have colimients basea on more detailed review during the public review period of the final report itself . The City of Dublin' s comments are as follows : 1 . The City is in support of the tao station concept for the Dub!J-- P1°asanton area- Two stations, each navina access and par:cing on bath the Dublin anct Pleasanton sides of the freeway ao—Dears to be an a Jprupriate 'Way of spreaCing th` tra_-Zlc and: the im;Dacts of tie station itself and to serve the future BAR'f patrons . 2 . fide City also suo-dorts tad, conc'a7L of construction a',-id tae operation of t_he two stations simultaneously in one phase ratner than building t:ie Dublin Station first anti the Hacienda station in a later phase . 3 . The City of Dublin strongly supports the adoption or the I-580 alignment to Livermore . It appears that the analysis in the repot, in which year 2000 costs, revenues and patronage form a key inp- for tiie final recoinnendation is siiortsignted. Based on the tentative time table established for the Liv(:rlaore portion of the line, it is possible that the line itself niay not even be operational by the year 2000 . In this case, a longer analysis would be indicated. A lco;c into the valley of the future would certainly swing the patronage and revenue projections in support of tiie I-580 alignment in view of the 11;cely development of inajor projects along the I-580 corridor itself. 4 . The proposed downtown Dublin station area occupies valuable potential co:hunerclal area within the City. While we are supportive of 1-1avizg an adequately sized parking aroa we are also concerned about the loss or both d'evelooable and partially developed land. Par this reason, It is our position that BART should consider stations involving dbu:)le--necking par:<ing lots or unc'.er round pr3r.,ing or other :iheans to Iriciint:ain ad:et- uate capacity but rcuucec: Lana recuire:'-,eihLS . l':hiS ootentlal cci:;binatlon or parking over�low In tihe iiOhlnrown area and !--he rt3duc.ion of coiilllHercial developabl- area is tie reason. that =.`hi' City had earlier e;cpre?ssec? concerI-I wi-Lh the station In tills 1(.)car c,-1 . '-Z not:! Urg.° Lhat tiles('_ Joints be carefully considered Jy BART in LLS finch «d;Uption an future p1c3nIllrig it.icila. werizel -2- uctci)er ?d, 1933 i:'nat: circulat,.orl cat both stations woulc be ennanced by a Cross connection ber-weer Lie i)unlin anal i easanton sillies of the + pI .. ng areas . This would: allm.v the stsclons to have ?ropor I,:ir.culatiurl simJ lar to nose other: B.AiZ1 facilities Withou`l- tale use of e%tensive circuitous routes on City streets. Such overpass connections would need ;-o be w�.,ll designed so as to nut encourage through local traffic . o . It is e:coected that there would be significant impacts on the streets near the HART sLai.ions theiilselLes . `i'his should be the subject of iurt ler stu( v so chat necessary improvements to the Streets call be maLie and; that Manning for these i:-,l,)roverients can coiL.i,.cnce at tihLAJ.s V.i II;_ . 7 . Rel at�eo. to the access issue is file City o% Dublin' s need. for direct access to the 1-680 freewa ' near Dui)lin boulevard. A major purpose, of tills access would: ne to provide access to the downtown BART szation from areas to the nor'. 1,, such as San .Ramon. The int(e-change :mule' preclude the need fo_ " L_Ilrough" B I:T traffic for San Rar-,;on or `lsewh`re to use our local street s'r s teCn. It IS Cili desire tYla t:1Ee i:IA_-f -Jianni ng lnciuce t,nis aC;C_tlOnCll _n:::..:Change_ . Tne C icy cu::rte;:_l! feels C.:le filial a:J7r ov l Of a c o,,.,nz:own } iUT s,'t3: lon ts`1__ is, in zact, cono.3.tlonec u.--)on the dLdi :lor'.al lnt:erc.^.1nga . The C l Uf JL JI_.. 13 lls0 d__ocli.ssln^y tills Concern W1t:1 tle or:�senc J . :is VUIl kno'.,, ci,.e Cit'! of. ::u.J)!Li is cu_zently conduct-,n s u(diies wt_ch 7111 leas 1:O t_`le auoP_1Gn or its first General ?lall In the hear future. Many of i`le bik1:T related (fletails sui:h as access, circula '_on and lanC. use Heat' Cihe �)r07U5�'_(. stations are of vital importance in our General Plan process . ro= i nls reason, It is 1..iportant to the Cl c•1 z;,,a t W r' Ilaln gain con�1;Iuous coi:;Irlunlcatlon b<e t:•.reOn our l;lu:_U;il punning efforts . '.Lh,.ih:C you for the'_ opportunity to coia;,t1P_nt on the Craft final report. PleaSE' Contact isle It tilere are, cuestlons . Sincerely, R'Lci:ar d C. IL,:„rose City -Manager