PC 010902 - Laserfiche WebLink

that the extension of the train beyond Bernal was rejected and due process with appropriate ,-. notice needs to be served if another location is proposed. James Swofford, 33941 MacMillan Way, Fremont, advised that he is in attendance as an official spokesperson for the Pacific Locomotive Association. He commented that all of the plans submitted by the PLA for review by the Committee included a trail, and that the general and board meetings held by the PLA are open to the public, and he does not recall anyone from Pleasanton attending any of their meetings. He further commented that the soundwall is news to him, too. He referenced the Planning Commission minutes of September 26, 2001 regarding his statement that he wants to be sure that a comparison of their historic railroad with the Union Pacific Railroad is done, noting that there are differences between the two and his intent was that a "fair" comparison be done. Mr. Swofford also referenced page 3-17 of the Final EIR, noting that he is glad that the City does not concur that the historic railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad be treated equally, as he does not think they are equal. He noted that in a meeting with City staff following the Planning Commission's September 26 presentation, it was explained to him that the model used for the EIR document was a planning-level document, not a project- level document, and that no field-data was collected. He advised that the PLA was given the opportunity to present such data at its own expense and under a limited timeframe. Mr. Swofford advised that he would like to think his organization could do a presentation that would be harmonious with all of the residents of Pleasant on. ,-. Commissioner Arkin asked how far the railway could be extended toward the City of Pleasanton without getting the City's permission. Mr. Swofford indicated that he is not sure that they would want to proceed into P1easanton at all without the City's approval. He noted that the first grade crossing at Junipero would require some document from the City and the County. Valerie Hurst, 3593 Arbor Court, stated that she fully supports staffs presentation tonight and the E1R as "tweaked" by the staff with the broader interpretations. With regard to the train and the vote that was taken, she commented that the train as presented in the ballot language was to run twice each month with no cost to the City and there was no alternative plan presented. She noted that the alternative plan for the train is a decent, regional trail system so that people can bike or hike to the San Francisco Bay. She noted that this access is no longer available through Niles Canyon, because the train is there. She advised that she feels the train is doing beautifully where it is between Suno1 and Niles. She stated that if the train comes into Pleasanton there would be a grade crossing at a very busy intersection. She suggested that the possibility of having the train come into the depot on the Bernal property for the Ace train be explored. Robert Cordtz, 262 W. Angela, cited an excerpt from the introduction of a book entitled, "Nothing Like it in the World," which was about the transcontinental railroad. He noted that this railroad would not be built today if they had to go through the exercise we are going through today. Mr. Cordtz requested a copy of the letter written by Mr. MacNeil of the Alameda County Public Works, as well as Mr. Hoge's letter questioning the EIR. Mr. Cordtz advised that he likes the idea of bringing the issue of the train back to a vote, perhaps tying it in with the Bernal property. He also commented that he cannot see justification for the Railroad Avenue extension. He noted that Railroad Avenue couldn't be extended into Ray or Walnut. He asked why this issue needs to remain in the Specific Plan, as it does not do anything for traffic circulation. r- January 9, 2002 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES