PC 092601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Michael Snyder, 1227 Porta Ballens, Alameda 94501, commented on the history of the Niles ,,- Canyon Railroad. He noted that there were six members on the Downtown Committee from the trails committee, but no representative from the railroad. He provided the following comments on the Draft EIR. . Page 4-39, reference to 120 persons per train. This must be the ACE train. The Niles Canyon train holds 50 to 90 people. . Page 4-40, reference to existing schedule. There is no existing schedule for Pleasanton. . Page 4-40, reference to street crossings. There will not be that many street crossings. . Page 4-40, reference to time to cross is too high. . Page 4-40, paragraph 4, "significant". What is evaluation criteria? . Page 4-41, Alternative #1 & #3, statements regarding unavailable parking on days when the train is operating are not accurate. . Page 4-42, requirement for retaining wall. Where is the engineering criteria to support this? . Alternative #4, 127 parking spaces. This adds to the Senior Center parking lot. . Alternative #4, reference to safety of pedestrians crossing Bernal to get to the Downtown. The train is actually a safer way to get to the Downtown. . Page 4-43, comment regarding loss of parking when train is in operation is not accurate. . Page 4-44, statement regarding requirement for environmental review. The nine-mile right- of-way from Verona Road to Niles was done with a negative declaration. In response to a question from Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Snyder advised that he does not feel the statement on page 4-40 regarding the delays for vehicles is accurate. r- Commissioner Arkin asked if the PLA representatives are willing to meet with staff to work out these issues. Mr. Iserson advised that staff would ask the consultant to contact representatives of the PLA. Andrew Shaper, 286 Division Street, stated that his property was rezoned without his knowledge. He noted that there seems to be a conflict between the desire to maintain high density residential and the rezoning to medium density residential for some properties. He advised that he feels that the decision about which lots are to be rezoned has been arbitrary. He stated that he is concerned that the potential to do what he may want to do with his property is going to be restricted. Michael O'Callaghan, 3425 Arbor Drive, commented on the reference in the staff report regarding the function of a program EIR. He noted that he has followed the process of the development of the Downtown Specific Plan since its inception and there are clearly some issues in the Specific Plan that cannot be addressed at this time, such as the civic center and the roundabout. He stated that there is no reason that the EIR cannot completely address the impacts of the train. He asked that the Commission direct staff to have a more thorough EIR prepared that addresses the train and the Alameda County Transportation Corridor. He commented that he has reviewed the environmental documents for the three apartment projects on Case A venue and there was no mention of the rail corridor in those materials. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 2001 Page 10