PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Diane Sass, 462 Hamilton Way, addressed traffic concerns. She nderstood that the City was not ready to signalize the project; she noted that the intersec on at SunoV Arlington was extremely dangerous. It was the consensus of the committee that e Castlewood Heights intersection is too close to the freeway to allow residents safe s when turning left into the project. She also felt that ingress and egress would be dange us for those in Carriage Gardens development. She urged that the density for the project e further reduced to a more acceptable level. Ed Dantzig, 678 Romeo Ct. spoke in opposition to the project. I approved, he proposed the following: 1. One acre lot size for lots that abut agriculturallan to the south; 2. 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size in keeping with the rural lots in the sou Pleasanton area; 3. Single story home design for lots on visually sensitive areas with eight restrictions; 4. Open fencing compatible with the Carriage Garden neighborhood. 5. A design similar to that described in the EIR. He concluded that he felt the proposed project is not right for the neighborhood. Chairman Mahern asked the public how many supported Mr. Dan 'g's proposal. The majority of the public raised their hands. Dan Temple, 6409 Alisal, stated that he is speaking for the Happ support all that the previous speakers who opposed the project ha stated. He felt that they are not actually hearing the plan for the proposed project, but ano er "Bonde 91". He did ~ not think mitigation measures have taken place, and that this proj t is simply being moved around like the Bonde project. Ed Churka, 405 Oak Lane, said he had understood that the train stle would have to be removed if the project goes forward, He was opposed to that pos 'bility and noted that there is a plan for a recreational train to be using that trestle sometime' the future. He further agreed with the concerns expressed about traffic issues as related y previous speakers. Ralph Levy, 6637 Amber Lane, also spoke in opposition to the pr ~ect. He noted that the drainage issues, overcrowding of schools, sewage impacts, and ad uate water issues have not been addressed in the EIR. The need for another sewage pu p station have not been addressed; he said no one is even discussing the additional water u ge for the project. He noted that in the EIR there was not one significant impact that e a non-significant impact. Patricia Mitchell, 602 Blossom Ct. spoke in opposition to the proj t. She felt the project was being rushed through and that the Commission should postpon a decision until more facts are concluded. She felt the creek area should stay just like it is now; she felt the density is being changed from time to time, with different plans co . g up that the neighborhood has not seen. She felt the developer is not negotia' g properly with the ~ Minute. P1anning Commission March 25, 1992 Page 17