CCMIN020502 - Laserfiche WebLink

comments suggesting that Pleasanton residents were not friendly. She believed the residents have a right to comment on how tax dollars are spent and what happens to the town they in which they live. This is our home and we should take care of it. She wanted to redevelop a sense of community, and to find accommodation for the people who want the train. There have been suggestions of a compromise to bring it south of Junipero. With some willingness to compromise on the other side, we could work to a solution that would meet more needs than just continuing the debate. She urged Council to end the discussion, accept the Downtown Specific Plan as drafted and honor the work of all the people involved for the past few years. Let Pleasanton continue to develop and bring the train in somewhere it doesn't rip our heart out. Sue Axton, 225 Ray Street, urged Council to designate 325 Ray Street as residential. She did not want commercial use and definitely did not want it used as a parking lot. Pacific Union has been working with the neighborhood to devise an acceptable plan and the neighbors all agree on the ten-unit plan. Michael O'Callaghan, 125 West Neal Street, Suite C, indicated he is a long time resident and business owner, member of the PDA, member of the restructuring committee and chairman of the Business Research Committee. He thanked the members of the Downtown Specific Plan committee and City staff for all their hard work. He asked Council to support the PDA position on the Specific Plan. Parking is the biggest consideration. He said people do not park on the Transportation Corridor on Saturdays and Sundays. The loss of 75 parking spaces will produce 33,000 passengers on the train. He felt there was ample parking for downtown on the weekend and the train can do for downtown on Sundays what the Farmers' Market does for downtown on Saturdays. He believed there were a lot of things that were not studied by the Specific Plan Committee, such as parking at Sunol and Niles, the compatibility with the Bemal crossing and the Main Street southern terminus feature, and the Parks and Trails Plan. The parks and trails plan for the transportation corridor is unchanged with the train coming through the middle of it. The train would go in the pavement and no parking or trail is lost. The greater area marketing plan for the PDA and northern California was not studied. A marketing plan for the shops and retailers was not studied and no downtown retailer was on the specific plan committee. In fact they were not consulted at all. Mr. O'Callaghan said he has spent about 100 hours talking to owners of downtown shops and restaurants and 90% of them are in favor of the train. The committee also did not study the impacts on real estate. He agreed the seniors are not being listened to and he felt the people on Second Street have decided this is a win/lose situation. The PDA wants to see if this will really be of benefit or not. The town hall meetings were soundly supported by advocates of the train. He felt the City needed to make a proposal to the train people, so the City is in the position of managing that feature of downtown with no impacts on residents. He did not think anyone had contacted another community to see how the train affects it. He has done that and he has presented the information to Council. He asked Council to support a further study and he did not think an outside consultant was necessary. He asked Council to heed the 500 members of the PDA, the 100 retail owners and thousands of Pleasanton residents who are interested in the train. He did not think an adequate study had been done to date. Bud Barlow, 6723 Alisal Street, believed that trails and the railroad can co-exist in the Transportation Corridor. A lot of study has gone into this, but he has not seen a comparison with Pleasanton City Council 19 02/05/02 Minutes