Laserfiche WebLink
Application of the City of Pleasanton to change the General Plan designation of the <br />approximately 17 acre City Corporation Yard located at 5335 Sunol Boulevard and the <br />~pproximately 20.5 acre City-owned parcel located west of the corporation yard imme- <br />diately west of the SPRR ri.ght-of-way from "Public and Institutional" and "General <br />and Limited Industrial" to "Public and Institutional", Parks and Recreation", and <br />"High Density Residential" Districts <br /> <br />Consider Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration <br /> Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 84:353) dated June 20, 1984, regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the mitigated <br />negative declaration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Harvey Levine, 1296 Vintner Way, representing the Pleasanton Housing Group, <br />Inc., stated this group is in accord with the staff report and Planning Commission <br />recommendations, particularly as it concerns the 10 acre parcel designated for senior <br />citizen housing. <br /> <br /> Ms. I!ene Weinreb, representing the Bay Area Council, stated she supports this <br />proposal because of the need for this type of housing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mike McQuaid, 2468 Via de los Milagros, representing the Pacific Locomotive <br />Association, questioned the general plan amendment to change zoning in the area of <br />the Corporation Yard which indicates removal of the railroad tracks. He requested <br />that the City include consideration of the proposed Pleasanton-Niles Railroad project <br />in this general plan amendment, which would include a historical railroad terminal <br />near New Berna! Avenue. Mr. McQuaid presented renderings of the right-of-way use <br />and a proposed terminal building. He stated that such an operation would be compat- <br />ible with a senior citizen project, would be beneficial to the downtown business, and <br />would create a unique recreation opportunity for this area. He elaborated on two <br />possible proposals: (1) only uses the Southern Pacific right-of-way and locates the <br />station as close as practical to New Bernal Avenue and will provide approximately 250 <br />parking spaces in that facility; and (2) utilizes approximately four acres of Corpora- <br />tion Yard land closest to the right-of-way and nearest New Bernal Avenue and would <br />provide the same station area and same amount of parking, and would also provide a <br />building to house some of the equipment for display and an outside track for outside <br />display. Mr. McQuaid advised that financing would be accomplished through pledges <br />and loans and should be no problem. He stated he will be meeting shortly with South- <br />ern Pacific regarding access to the railroad right-of-way. He stated the tracks will <br />not be abandoned for six months, but he hopes to secure the right to use the tracks <br />and begin construction plans as soon as possible thereafter. He stated that any con- <br />sideration for contribution from the City relative to land use would be appreciated <br />but the Locomotive Association does have resources for the proposed project. Mr. <br />McQuaid stated it is his opinion that this project can be considered within the de- <br />signation of "Parks and Recreation" of this general plan amendment and would be <br />compatible with its intent for senior citizen housing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bob Graham, 3973 Mt. Ranier Court, and downtown businessman, stated the rail- <br />road project is a viable possibility which has been successful in other cities. He <br />stated that in his opinion this is an opportunity that Pleasanton cannot afford to <br />pass up. <br /> <br /> Mr. Curt A!tschul stated he feels the railroad project is a great idea. He <br />stated that senior citizens should have accessible shopping, and he encouraged the <br />use of the property zoned C-N in Mission Park for a neighborhood shopping center. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gerald Case, 3819 Vineyard Avenue, stated he is not against the railroad pro- <br />ject, but would not want anything to endanger the senior citizen projects which he <br />wholeheartedly endorses. <br /> 5. 6/26/84 <br /> <br /> <br />