CCMIN020502 - Laserfiche WebLink

not always run and will often times be replaced by a diesel locomotive. As far as the cost, it has already cost the City a lot because it funded the EIR. It will cost more when the City buys the Transportation Corridor and gives it to the PLA for a train that people do not want. He felt citing the 1996 vote was absurd, because it is not what people thought they were voting for. He urged Council to approve the Downtown Specific Plan as presented and not allow the option for an additional eighteen month study. There is an economic report and he did not know what further value there could be in another similar study. It would not be appropriate for the study to be led by someone with a specific interest. It must be a neutral party like the City and the City has already done the study. The conclusion is clear: the train is bad. Bruce Myers, Pacific Union Homes, 675 Hartz Avenue, Danville, representing the owners of the property at 325 Ray Street, said three and a half years ago an office building was proposed for this property which was rejected by the Planning Commission due to neighborhood opposition. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Council change the existing specific plan designation of the property to residential. We appealed that decision to Council and were denied again because of neighborhood opposition and the pending revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan. That brings us to the present item. Pacific Union representatives and the neighbors have attended the Specific Plan meetings and two letters have been submitted to Council. The committee and the Planning Commission still recommend that 325 Ray Street be designated residential. He said Pacific Union has been meeting with the neighborhood for the last two years and have designed a plan the neighbors can support. One of the main concerns was traffic on Ray Street and an office building would generate three times as much traffic during peak hours as a residential use would. This meeting is not about deciding the details of the residential plan. The details can still be refined with staff, the Planning Commission and Council in finding ways to incorporate the arroyo. Tonight's meeting will decide whether the property is residential or office. He felt the record speaks for itself. The Planning Commission and City Council denied an office building before, the Committee and the Planning Commission is recommending residential, so he asked Council to follow that recommendation and leave it as Michael Snyder, 1227 Porta Ballena, Alameda, indicated he was in favor of the Niles Canyon Railway. In 1996, the voters voted three to one in favor of the train and he did not understand why Council did not start working to make it happen. He agreed the measure said that no City money would be committed, but there has been a lot of money spent to keep it out of downtown by this long process. He spoke about the amount of money spent on postage and paper for the many reports mailed out. He felt the Downtown Specific Plan Committee was flawed because at the beginning at least one-third of the membership came immediately from the parks and trails committee with a recommendation that the Transportation Corridor be used for their trails. After the first four months of the Committee hearings and providing incredibly detailed information to them, the vote was extremely close. Yet everything tonight makes it appear there was a strong unanimous vote against the train. Another argument against the train is the parking it will interfere with and the parking needed when it comes to town. The assumption in the EIR is that everyone that rides the train will come to Pleasanton. Actually, one-half to two-thirds of the passengers will park in Sunol or Niles. Some may come by foot, bicycle or bus. No consideration was given to that. Mr. McLain mentioned costs and funding and Mr. Snyder agreed the PLA does not have that kind of money in the bank. Look at what the Pleasanton City Council 15 02/05/02 Minutes