CCMIN020502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Fremont will come in and want fast food. How dare someone assume what I would want to enjoy. The historic train is not the ACE train. People enjoy the slow trip through Niles Canyon and enjoy the vistas of the hills and trees. He disagreed that the train will be bad for Pleasanton. The impacts will be to bring people to your friendly town and not to make it a tourist trap. He urged preservation of the historic train. Vera Dunder, 4713 and 4725 First Street, wanted to retain the four-way intersection at Main Street and Bernal. According the Planning Commission staff report dated 1/9/02, the PDA would like to keep the issue open in the Specific Plan and Ms. Hardy supported the original plan for realignment. She felt that was based on an unpublished transportation report which she has never seen. She felt the information was based on recession data. She has 5,000 sq. ft. of empty space at 4725 First Street and she did not think the report included traffic from the development on Bernal Avenue. She objected to that report overriding the EIR. The Planning Commission agreed to keep that item open. The current Council staff report does not refer to keeping that issue open, but states there is agreement to relocate First Street. She asked how that happened? Mr. Iserson confirmed the Planning Commission agreed to keep options open on the concept of realignment of Main Street subject to the traffic working. It will require more analysis and possibly more environmental review once the traffic numbers have been received. Ms. Dennis clarified that the option remains open and there has not been a definitive traffic study. That will occur in the future. Ms. Dunder asked how the citizens can be informed on this. She urged the City to follow state law and she wanted detailed plans. Vera Revelli, 4725 and 4713 First Street (daughter of Mrs. Dunder), also objected to keeping the concept of the realignment of Main Street. This concept was spoken against at many of the meetings by many people for different reasons. Because of that the Committee removed the concept from its recommendations. She did not think it spoke well for the public process to have this put back in at the last minute. She showed where her property was with regard to the realignment and how the realignment would affect her property. She also spoke about the issue of parking and how this realignment would take away their parking area. She felt it would devalue the property because their tenants require parking nearby. She felt that many people who had spoken against this realignment were unaware that it has been put back in and if they had known about it, the chambers would be packed. Jim Clennon, 4161 Walnut Drive, said he owns property next to 325 Ray Street. He strongly urged Council to keep that property designated as residential. He does not understand why staff ever wanted to make it commercial. That does not fit with the neighborhood. It would increase traffic and make it more difficult for people on Ray Street to get in and out of their properties. He cannot imagine any commercial use that would be acceptable by the residents in the area. Pacific Union has spent a lot of time with the neighborhood reviewing proposals and making adjustments that are acceptable by all. The residents on Walnut appreciated that and he felt the current proposal makes sense for them and for downtown. Pleasanton City Council 17 02/05/02 Minutes