CCMIN010792 - Laserfiche WebLink

13 Joe Madden, 1544 Santa Rita Road, referred to his written comments forwarded to the Council. He s~mmarized by stating that he supported the staff recommendation to delete the sentence from paragraph three, page three of the Circulation of Element of the General Plan that reads: "These corridors could be used for light rail transit sometime in the future." However, since Pleasanton's concern about future transit in the abandoned S.P. right-of-way is restricted to only the downtown segment of the S.P. abandoned right-of-way, it would be clearer if this sentence in the General Plan text remained unchanged, and then a comma was added to this sentence followed by the words, "except in the downtown area." He continuedby indicating the broken dash line on the General Plan colored map along the 20 acre'parcel on Stanley Boulevard, indicating a "Transportation Corridor", should be moved to the other side of this property line tothe Stanley Boulevard right-of- way, since the Staff's studies see no problem with this. These suggestions would eliminate present City contradictions between zoning and the General Plan Map and its text. Brent Wilcox, 3988 Stanley Boulevard, spoke for his mother who owns the property. He stated that without abandoning any rights to a portion of the right-of-way, she had no objection to the deletion. Ed Churka, 507 St. John Street, expressed his concerns about the S.P. corridor right-of-way containing a liquid gas line and stated that there is 28-50 ft. requirement for the pipe line. He 'wanted Council to be aware of potential hazards if housing were developed in the area. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Scribner commented that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council requested that City Council wait for the completion of the upcoming transportation study. She suggested that the Council wait until the results come in from the regional study before designations are changed. Ms. Mohr remarked that it is not necessary to keep that corridor. available for heavy rail when there is another right-of- way that would accommodate several tracks in addition to the already existing one. Taking tracks off the right-of-way does not interfere with the Council's ability to respond to a light rail corridor. Mr. Tarver stated that action should be delayed on this item until'the transportation study is complete. He felt that Council may receive some additional information t~at will enable it to make a better decision. 1/7/92 13