Laserfiche WebLink
84 <br /> <br /> development of his property would be consistent with a rural <br /> environment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim Lavey, 547 Sycamore Road, whose property is two <br /> parcels away from the proposed development, indicated that he was <br /> in favor of the project. He stated that the General Plan has <br /> designated this side of Sycamore Road to be Medium Density and <br /> that the developers' request falls within the guidelines. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gary VanWegen, 488 Sycamore Road, Co-President of the <br /> Alisal Improvement Club, stated that the property on 417 Sycamore <br /> Road must have been prematurely taken into the City limits because <br /> no City water or sewer has ever been extended to the property. He <br /> stated that at the last City Council meeting, there were some <br /> inaccuracies regarding the discussion on the North Sycamore <br /> Specific Plan relative to the property at 417 Sycamore Road. The <br /> report mentioned that the Committee does not recommend including <br /> the area south of Sycamore Road between the existing City limits <br /> and Amber Lane. Mr. Swift stated that the Committee had decided <br /> not to extend to the south side of Sycamore Road. This is <br /> incorrect because the first three properties at the southwest side <br /> of Sycamore Road from Sunol Boulevard to 417 Sycamore Road have <br /> always been included in the Specific Plan. On two different <br /> occasions, the Council has expressed that the annexation <br /> boundaries be extended eastward from 417 Sycamore Road to Amber <br /> Lane. The Committee recommended not to annex these properties <br /> unless they were designated PUD-Agricultural/One Acre to avoid <br /> having a Medium Density site right next to a PUD-Agricultural <br /> area. The Staff Report states that the agricultural atmosphere <br /> can be maintained by site development standards. The Alisal group <br /> would like to have some say in what standard is set on the lot <br /> proposed to be developed, as well as the five lots to the east. <br /> It would be inappropriate to push this development just ahead of <br /> the Specific Plan, which is two months away from having a Draft <br /> EIR, when nothing has been decided about the south side of <br /> Sycamore Road. This project should not be postponed but it should <br /> be coordinated well with the other south side and north side <br /> properties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that the Specific Plan indicated that <br /> the properties on the north side of Sycamore Road would be one- <br /> acre lots along the frontage. He inquired if he understood <br /> correctly that the Committee felt it would be all right to proceed <br /> with the development if there would be one-acre sites on the south <br /> side as well. <br /> <br /> Mr. VanWegen replied that that was the recommendation of the <br /> Citizens' Committee. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked Mr. VanWegen if, in his personal opinion, it <br /> would it be appropriate to allow the development of the two back <br /> lots by the cul-de-sac, with the frontage being one lot consisting <br /> of 32,000 sq. ft. <br /> <br /> -6- <br /> 2-6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />