PC 09/11/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Sue Frost, 999 E. Sycamore Road, expressed concern that the beginning plans for North Sycamore started out to be very small; now they are quite large. She noted that now there is a plan where the road goes through her house. She was also concerned that it is being said that a school is not necessary; however, three children in her daughter's class had to go to a different school because of overcrowding. She felt further development in the area would simply escalate the problem and she could not understand why it is being said a school is not necessary . Margo Kelley, 5157 Independence Drive, expressed concern about her children's safety and of her neighbors' children should Independence Drive become a connector street. Mary Greene, 386 Sycamore Road, stated she agreed with John Severini's comments. She presented a letter with her comments to the Commission and staff. She stated that she is personally opposed to any development, because of the possibility of new roads and widening of existing roads, lack of water, and deterioration of their quality of life. Bud Barlow, 6723 Alisal Street, said if development takes place he would be in favor of two houses per acre. Ken Benevedes, 362 Sycamore Road, said one of his problems is that he has seen three different road plans at this point. He was completely opposed to Scheme 7 as it would completely take away his house. He expressed concern that specific roads are not being addressed; he did not want any road to widen to be a major thoroughfare; he did not see how the rural character of the area could be maintained with new roads and more development. Jim Ladado, 5181 Independence Drive, urged that the Commission preserve the quality of life in the area by not approving development in North Sycamore. Tom Guy, 530 Sycamore Road, stated he is hearing remarks about widening the road all the way from 22 ft. to 70 ft. or 103 ft. He was definitely opposed to that possibility and felt all the plans should be "scrapped". He was opposed to anything that would change the rural nature of the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to comments about how the width of the road was calculated, Mr. Rasmussen clarified the 103 ft. figure (which is not a final figure) came about as being the east end of Sunol Boulevard where the east/west connector would be located. The reason for the widening was a variety of turning lanes, along with a sidewalk, bike lanes, and equestrian trail. In actuality, it would narrow down dramatically after a few hundred feet to about 61 feet. This would include five foot sidewalks, six foot bike lanes, and a center left-turn lane, and a five foot equestrian lane, separated about five feet from the sidewalk. Minutes Planning Commission September 11, 1991 Page 15 ,. .