CCMIN080189 - Laserfiche WebLink

213 Ms. Phyllis Couper, 6525 Alisal Street, a member of the Specific Plan Committee, indicated that they wanted options that would provide the structures they needed without creating any impact on individual owners. She stated that Option 2 along with the Plan 1 map would provide as much fairness as possible to all the parties concerned. Ms. Kathy Lodato, 5181 Independence Drive, mentioned that while she was not opposed to annexation and development, she was opposed to Independence Drive connecting from Sunol Blvd. to Bernal Avenue. This would create a short cut, and people would take that route rather than go through two intersections, thereby putting an unacceptable amount of traffic on their street. She mentioned that it is important to preserve the Happy Valley area as much as the new neighborhoods that have been developed there, and expressed interest in being involved in discussions on the annexation process. Ms. Linda Peterson, 5747 San Carlos Way, indicated that the residents of Mission Park and Ventana Hills have not been involved in the development of the Specific Plan and were not satisfied with it since annexation could take place without their concerns being addressed. She stated that they too wanted to be involved in future discussions on the matter. Mr. Mercer explained that all that was being considered at this time was the annexation of the property. The School District hired Land Planning Consultants to work with the neighbors, but the Council does not have to accept the Plan. If the property is annexed, a separate decision will be made regarding what is to be developed on the property after annexation. If it is not annexed, the property would stay in the County. Then planning and development in the property would be done through the County. Mr. Brandes pointed out that the only way the City would have control of the property would be through annexation, after which there would be the normal procedures of going through the Planning Commission and public hearings. Mr. Mercer clarified that the issue went deeper: the School District recommended that the property be annexed and the Specific Plan adopted. The Council would have to decide what options to take: annex, annex with the plan, or annex and work with the neighbors towards an acceptable plan. Mr. Stanley Rathbone, 325 Ray Street, stated that annexation would be defeating the purpose of growth management, as annexing a rural area marks it off for development. Ms. Mary Greene, 386 Sycamore Road, a resident of the area for 34 years, read a letter she had sent to the Council on behalf of her parents. She also handed the Councilmembers a petition opposing annexation, signed by Sycamore Road residents within 300 feet of the annexation boundary. -7- 8-1-89