Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. VanWegen stated that it would be all right with him and <br />that Mr. Don Temple would have more to say on the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Don Temple, 6409 Alisal Road, stated that he had no <br />objection to the proposed development but that the timing was a <br />bit inappropriate. He added that this property originally came <br />into the City primarily because of County health problems <br />involving sewer and water situations that needed to be taken care <br />of. The annexation resulted in the creation of an island out of <br />two pieces of property which are now included in the Specific <br />Plan. He said that he was not opposed to the development of the <br />back parcels referred to by Mr. Tarver as long as it follows the <br />general recommendations made for development along Sycamore Road. <br />He added that the General Plan for the area came out without any <br />input from the residents and should not be used as the criteria <br />under which the area is to be developed. He emphasized the <br />importance of having a continuity between this property and the <br />entire study area and proposed that the project be denied at this <br />time to come back after the Specific Plan is completed or delay it <br />until such time as the formulation of the Specific Plan has <br />begun. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the EIR being done for the North <br />Sycamore Study addresses Sunol Boulevard to Amber Lane on the <br />south side of Sycamore Road, which would be a logical extension of <br />the annexation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that it would address the general area and <br />the general impacts but not in terms of specific policies or plans <br />unless the Council so directs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if annexing about one acre, consisting of <br />four to five lots, would require an EIR. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered that the process of annexation requires <br />prezoning, and a decision has to made on whether the prezoning <br />would require an EIR or a negative declaration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that it would be logical to go to Amber <br />Lane. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr recalled that when Council first looked at the <br />potential annexation of the area, a couple of property owners <br />between 417 Sycamore Road and Amber Lane were not interested in <br />annexing, and rather than getting into that particular issue, <br />Council only took in what was imperative to make the study work. <br />It would be logical to include these southern properties if <br />circumstances have changed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Temple pointed out that the objective is to keep the <br />continuity along the street and have the opportunity for the <br />higher density to flow into the lower density while preserving the <br />rural environment. <br /> <br /> -7- <br /> 2-6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />