PC 08/25/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

should be built so that when you look over the rooflines you can see the ridge. Ms. Perry noted that a 7,000-square-foot home is not rural and it is out of character with the Sycamore area. She stated support for constructing a path and keeping kids off of Sunol Boulevard. She indicated that it is important for kids to be walking through a neighborhood, where mothers are home, when they go back and forth to school, since we no longer have any school bussing. She noted that she believes that "chicken alley" is no longer a rural area, since the school district sold its property and the golf course was planned for that area. She stated that she thinks the appropriate place for the path is between the Greenbriar development and Mr. Bozorgzad's property, and that Greenbriar should have had to put in two pathways, one at San Antonio and one at San Carlos. She noted that the path that goes around Mission Park and the stairway that leads to the homes above it has not created problems. In response to Commissioner Kameny's question, Mr. Plucker advised that in order to remove the path from the Specific Plan a specific plan amendment would need to be processed through the public hearing process. This would involve renoticing and analysis. Matt Duffy, 530A Sycamore Road, stated that he supports the application and Mr. Bozorgzad should be given his rights. He commented that other paths in the City have created unsafe situations and noted that paths in residential areas provide an area for people to dispose of their trash. He advised that they have horses and they are not in favor of a lot of people coming down on to the new east-west collector road because their property backs up to that road and this provides complications for horses and agriculture. Summer Backer, 530A Sycamore Road, stated that she has lived in the North Sycamore area for 25 years and she has survived walking along Sunol Boulevard. She stated she is opposed to the path. She advised that she has horses and that children who have not been around horses don't understand them. She stated that the path would create an unsafe situation. Mr. Bozorgzad stated that he does not believe that he claimed at any time that he was not aware of the proposed path. He advised that he attempted to contact a number of the people who signed the petition stating that they want the path now, and he clearly told them that when he purchased the property he had two contingencies on the offer letter; one was regarding hooking up to utilities from San Carlos Way and the other was he needed to come to a better understanding as to what the "dots" showing the pedestrian access were intended to be. He noted that he spoke to someone in the Planning Department who indicated that there was sufficient capacity for utility hook-ups from San Carlos Way for one more home, and he was also told that the path was not defined. He was also told that at the time the "dots" depicting the path were put into the plan there was so much opposition from the property owners on San Carlos Way and that neighborhood who did not want to have a connection that probably he would be able to do away with it. He stated that he proceeded and purchased the property. He reported that he then filed an application to amend the specific plan to eliminate the path from the plan. He advised that he spoke with residents on San Carlos Way and on Sycamore Road and the people he spoke with said they did not want the path. He advised that at the neighborhood meeting, only the people who objected to removing the path showed up. He stated that it was his decision not to pursue the application. He reported that he and Mr. Bach sat down and worked out a compromise to construct the path in order to serve the community. He advised that Mr. Bach is allowing the City the opportunity to making the few "dots" into something that people can actually look at on a piece of paper and understand, and provide the easement for that, but he has also said that you cannot he it now. Mr. Bozorgzad said that is the best PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 16 August 25, 1999