Laserfiche WebLink
176 <br /> <br /> Diane Sass, 462 Hamilton Way, stated that there was confusion <br /> about this project. She was concerned with the proposed project <br /> meeting the EIR standards; the holding capacity of the proposed <br /> lots; and traffic safety due to another intersection between <br /> Arlington and the freeway. She was greatly concerned with the <br /> grading, landfill, and off-haul process. <br /> <br /> Don Temple, 6409 Alisal, indicated that the Alisal Improvement <br /> Association shared the concerns of the previous speakers. He did <br /> not agree that the railroad viaduct was necessary in this project. <br /> The railroad viaduct would bring a great cost to the project and <br /> would encourage higher density development in that area. <br /> <br /> Ralph Levy, 6637 Amber Lane, shared his concerns with the <br /> project and EIR. He explained that the EIR was incomplete and did <br /> not apply to this newly proposed project of 37 units. He stated <br /> that the sewer plan was not addressed in the EIR. He was concerned <br /> with the traffic safety if the train trestle was not removed. Mr. <br /> Levy believed that this project would impact the already <br /> overcrowded schools in the City and that there had not been an <br /> evaluation of the underground springs. He added that the water <br /> needs were also not included in the EIR. He felt that the City <br /> has a responsibility to protect the property value of the <br /> neighboring homeowners. He urged Council to deny this application <br /> because it was not compatible with the existing neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Ed Churka, 405 Oak Lane, asked when the train trestle would be <br /> removed, if this proposal were approved. He indicated that this <br /> area is currently being considered as a potential museum/train <br /> corridor. The Pacific Locomotive Association is negotiating with <br /> Alameda County on this and the Association does not believe that <br /> the trestle should go down any time soon. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst stated that the applicants' objective is a low <br /> density project with two units per acre and the approval of Growth <br /> Management for 1993. They would continue to work with the <br /> neighbors to resolve any concerns. He felt that it would not take <br /> as much time as anticipated by previous speakers to off-haul the <br /> landfill. He explained that Happy Valley Road is a safety issue <br /> with or without this project because of the narrowness of the road. <br /> He again urged Council to approve Option 3 of the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked what consideration had been given to the <br /> train trestle crossing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst answered that the steam train was not considered. <br /> This project would start in no less than a year. <br /> <br /> Bob Richards, 6641 Amber Lane, stated that the neighbors did <br /> not want this property to be designated as low density but agreed <br /> that it would at least avoid office buildings being built there. <br /> <br /> 4/7/92 8 <br /> <br /> <br />