CCMIN031792 - Laserfiche WebLink

152 requests. She believed that an impact study should have been conducted on both the south and north sections of this project. She asked that the existing residents be considered in this decision and urged Council to preserve their rural lifestyle. Don Temple, 6409 Alisal Street, Vice-President of Alisal Improvement Association, asked why this project has to effect the existing residents. Mr. Temple reiterated Ms. Caldara's comments. He did not agree with the designation of MediumDensity Residential on the two sides of Rosepoint Drive. He believed that the Castlewood Heights proposal had an unacceptable density which was never addressed with the residents. Mr. Temple felt that staff was not being honest with the residents in this area in making these decisions. He asked for a long range plan. He believed that the area surrounding Rosepoint and Carriage Gardens must remain compatible with the area, the south side of Sycamore Road must remain one acre minimum, and the collector road should exit to the east only. Janet Linfoot, 6300 Alisal Street, agreed with the previous comments made by the other speakers. She indicated that there should be a life impact report created and shared her concern with the impact of this development. Jim Lavey, 547 Sycamore Road, stated that there had been a lot of hard work put into this project by committees, staff, and Council. He felt that this was a good plan and urged Council approval. Mr. Lavey explained that there had been five approved lots that abut Rosepoint which range in size from 8,300 to 13,160 square feet. He believed that his property which also abuts Rosepoint should be treated the same. He indicated that he would agree to only build single-story homes that abut Rosepoint. Phyllis Couper, 6525 Alisal, reiterated the concerns made by previous speakers. She believed that the protection of the rural environment is being threatened. She felt that the plan protects the needs of those who wish to change the area instead of the existing neighbors. She asked for clarification on how this specific plan was going to handle development change requests. It was her understanding that once the specific plan was approved there could not be any changes to the plan. Mr. Swift explained that the specific plan sets out many of those items in particularity and many are left for the final approval of a development plan for each property. The development plan for each property cannot be at variance with the specific plan policies without a specific plan modification. Ms. Couper referred to the acreage and asked if it was counted as net acreage. She was greatly concerned with the density. She asked what action would LAFCO take at its next meeting. 3/17/92 10