My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN030502
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN030502
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:34 AM
Creation date
3/27/2002 8:43:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/5/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN030502
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />Item 6a <br />Review of the l)raft l)owntown Specific Plan, Related General Plan Amendments, and <br />Final Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan <br />(SR 02:053) <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico and Ms. Michelotti left the dais and abstained from participating in the <br />decision. <br /> <br />Jerry Iserson presented the staff report. <br /> <br />Vice Mayor Dennis declared the public hearing open. <br /> <br /> Jessica Penland, 4413 Comanche Way, said she would like to see the noise and air <br />quality studies that justify excluding the train from downtown. She said Mr. Iserson indicated <br />such information is available and she wanted to see it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson said there were many issues involved as part of the train study. Many were <br />addressed in the committee process and information was included in the environmental impact <br />report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Penland referred to a statement by Pamela Hardy that there were air and noise studies <br />regarding the train that were instrumental in the Committee recommending against the extension <br />of the train. She said she had contacted the Planning Department and Mr. Iserson said no in <br />depth studies had been done as they were not priority issues at this time. She felt the <br />recommendations against the train have been without any scientific analysis and are based only <br />on opinion. In addition, there are no air and noise studies on the ACE train. It runs through <br />several residential areas and a proposed park more than thirty times a week. It has larger and <br />faster locomotives than the excursion train. The only thing done in regard to the ACE train was <br />a negative declaration. She felt there are far greater impacts from the commuter and freight <br />trains through town than from a train coming into downtown three or four times on the weekend <br />at a slow speed. She believed further scientific studies should be made before deciding against <br />the financial and historical contributions of the train. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated the debate about the train has been more about parking and <br />trails than anything else. It was her understanding that the Committee discussed air quality and <br />noise, but the focus has always been the impacts on parking, trails and parks. She acknowledged <br />that some people, like the seniors at Ridge View Commons, have great concerns about noise. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson indicated the EIR is a program EIR and looks at some of these issues more <br />generally. The train was an option only. The EIR concluded that there would not be a <br />significant impact on air quality, however, noise could be an impact. Should the concept of the <br />train be approved, then the Pacific Locomotive Association would have to put together all the <br />details of where the train would go, frequency of trips, etc. and at that time a more detailed <br />environmental analysis would be conducted. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 6 03/05/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.