PC 010902 - Laserfiche WebLink

for the seniors to get across the tracks to the Senior Center or to the Raley's Shopping Center if r the train traveled between the Senior Center and Ridgeview Commons. She noted that level ground is almost a necessity for those seniors who use wheelchairs or walkers, and the current pathway is paved and on level ground. She further noted that a tunnel or overhead walkway would limit the mobility and independence ofthe seniors and it would not be safe. She commented that the Pacific Locomotive Association is proposing an eleven-foot cement soundwall to be built between the tracks and Ridgeview Commons. She stated that the seniors currently enjoy a clear-path view of the Center and the surrounding area, and it does not make sense financially or aesthetically to build a soundwall for a train that will only run a few days each month. She reported that the seniors at Ridgeview Commons support the Downtown Parks and Trails Master Plan and that she has a petition signed by approximately 75 people. Dorothy Sternberg, 5150 Case Avenue #115, voiced support for keeping Pleasanton a charming town and expressed concern about safety issues related to the train coming past Ridgeview Commons, not only for the seniors, but the children who reside at the Promenade. She noted that she feels an eleven-foot soundwall will not only be unsightly, but a canvas for graffiti. She indicated that she is concerned about health effects related to a diesel train. r Vera Dunder, 4713 and 4725 First Street, Suite 245, noted that Mr. Iserson suggested that the development of a five-way intersection at the south end of Main Street would not take any property. She advised that she owns 125 feet of property between the Transportation Corridor and First Street and that there is no way to make a five-way intersection without taking her property. She asked that the Planing Commission not take action that would downgrade her property . Bruce Myers of Pacific Union Homes, indicated that he is representing the owners of 325 Ray Street. He provided information regarding the history of the site, noting that the current use of the site is residential. He reported that 3-112 years ago Pacific Union Homes proposed an office building for this site, which was fully supported by staff, but denied by the Planning Commission because the neighbors challenged the project. He further reported that the City Council denied the applicant's appeal and directed the applicant to work with the neighbors and the Specific Plan Committee regarding the development of the property. He advised that agreement was reached with the neighbors and the Committee that the property should be zoned residential. He noted that while staff is recommending what they feel is best for the City, they are ignoring the residents who live next to the property. Mr. Myers cited a reference in the Planning Commission staff report of July 1998 which expresses strong opposition by the neighbors to office use, and the desire for residential uses. He noted that at the Downtown Specific Plan Committee meeting in October when the recommendations were being finalized, and the neighbors were present, the Committee agreed that they wanted the site to be residential. Mr. Myers advised that residents from the adjacent neighborhood are present this evening to support the residential designation. He reported that the plan they are working on is for a ten-unit project which reflects a compromise they have been working on for 3-112 years. He noted that this is a plan which the neighbors support. Discussion ensued regarding density designation and the possibility of mixed use for the site. r-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 2002 Page 5