Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Art Dunkley, 4672 Second Street, asked that mitigation #64 regarding tree preservation be <br />r- eliminated, as it will create a nightmare for the property owners. He advised that the City's <br />Heritage Tree Ordinance works fine and that this mitigation is an unnecessary burden on the <br />property owners. He commented that residential on the second floor of Downtown is not the <br />place to get affordable, cost-effective housing. He stated that high density residential should be <br />around the commercial area of Downtown. He advised that the real issue regarding the train is <br />that it conflicts directly with other fine recommendations in the document, including additional <br />parking, the expansion of Wayside Park, and the improvement and enhancement of traffic <br />circulation. He asked that the Commission support the Committee's recommendation to <br />terminate the issue of the train coming to the Downtown. <br /> <br />Brent Wilcox advised that he is representing his mother who lives at 3980 Stanley Blvd. He <br />noted that he agrees with various reports that the trail going up the Arroyo is highly improbable. <br />He also noted that the proposed trail along the transportation corridor is of vital concern to his <br />mother maintaining the residential viability of her property. He noted that there are some very <br />sensitive issues with how the trail is designed, and he has been working with the City's <br />Landscape Architect, Mike Fulford, on this matter. He stated that there is not a consistent line of <br />front yards along the south side of "little Stanley" and to install sidewalks may "open a can of <br />worms." He advised that there is a constant concern about what is going to happen with the <br />development of "little Stanley." He advised that he is concerned about the extension of Del <br />V aile Parkway to "little Stanley" and the potential for increased traffic on "little Stanley." <br /> <br />r- <br /> <br />Michael O'Callaghan, 125 West Neal Street, stated that it seems the issue regarding the use of <br />the transportation corridor for the train could be resolved by putting it before the public for a <br />vote again. He noted that the Pleasanton Locomotive Association has a very specific master plan <br />which they have presented, which includes mitigations for the issues involved. He noted that he <br />believes there are some compromises that could be made and suggested that the Planning <br />Commission take a real close look at the recommendations from the PDA. He reported that the <br />survey referred to by Commissioner Arkin was sponsored by Downtown business owners and <br />property owners and targeted at commercial, not geared to residential. <br /> <br />Betty Nostrand, 4698 Second Street, stated that she is opposed to the train coming to the <br />Downtown. She noted that she believes given the choice of parking or the train, the people <br />Downtown would choose the parking. She advised that the latest proposal for the train not only <br />took 200 parking spaces designated for the corridor, but would require approximately 200 more <br />parking places for the people using the train, and the turning circumference of the turntable <br />would require condemnation of property Downtown. <br /> <br />Pamela Stoddard, 830 Main Street, Suite A, advised that she is the new Executive Director for <br />the Pleasanton Downtown Association. She reported that the original Downtown Specific Plan <br />supported the realignment of Main Street, but that was changed as the process progressed. She <br />advised that the PDA is asking that the original language which supports the concept of the Main <br />Street realignment be reinstated. <br /> <br />Martha Morse, 5130 Case Avenue, asked that the Planning Commission not allow the train to <br />come along Ridgeview Commons. She stated that the train in that location would not be <br /> <br />,,- <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />November 28, 2001 <br /> <br />Page 10 <br />