CCMIN120115 - Laserfiche WebLink

other options. Mr. Tassano mentioned that Junipero Street had already went through a traffic calming program in 2002 and although speed bumps weren't allowed at that time it is another form of traffic calming measures that can be used. Councilmember Brown asked if the traffic light can be decreased so that it is less convenient for motorists to turn left on Bernal and onto Independence or have no left turns during a certain timeframe. Although this is not relating to the decision for Lund Ranch II, it could help Ventana Hills and other neighborhoods, preventing dumping traffic on those streets. Mr. Tassano explained that some restrictions are an element for the traffic calming program. A turn restriction has to be supported by everyone affected in that area. As for delaying the signal, this can present a bigger problem than it solves due to motorist violating the traffic by disobeying the signal thinking it is broken. He stated that he would rather have motorist obey a green light rather than them run a red light thinking the signal is broken and thereby possibly causing bigger issues such as accidents. Mayor Thorne asked staff if he can elaborate and remind everyone what the policy is regarding gateway intersections and what the purpose of it is. Mr. Tassano noted gateway intersections are intersections that are directly at the freeway. Gateway intersections similar to downtown intersections are exempted from the City's Level of Service Standards should it go against other visual and pedestrian aspect. The policy is if an improvement to a gateway intersection inhibits the pedestrian feel or the look and nature of what City of Pleasanton wants then the intersections can be exempted. Stuart Flashman, attorney representing the Ridge and Hillside Protection Association and the Sycamore Heights neighborhood spoke about Measure PP and CEQA. He stated that when the Council is defining the points of Measure PP they have to keep the best interest of the voters in mind and upon making a decision regarding Measure PP the decision has to be consistent and not interchangeable. He noted the revised proposal plan revision is not major but it could be significant and needs to be reevaluated and requested that the council review the revised proposal and not make any decisions right away to allow feedback. Councilmember Olson asked Mr. Flashman how the Council could determine what the voters were thinking when Measure PP was voted on. Mr. Flashman advised Council to look at the previous measures that were taken when Measure PP was being drafted and subsequently voted on. These measures included review of the ballot and the impartial analysis as to what the voters were told regarding Measure PP and then review previous materials containing public opinions and so forth. Councilmember Brown asked how the courts would consider previous decisions relating to Measure P made by individual councilmembers, to which Mr. Flashman stated that the Courts do not make their decision based on an individual Councilmember, but the Council as a whole on the subject at hand. David Melaugh addressed the council about the proposed new plan by stating that it still has the same issues as the old roads as far as Measure PP was concerned. A road is a structure and for certain councilmembers who were elected based on their belief that a road is a structure thereby do not conform to Measure PP and requested the council to honor their commitment by not supporting the Lund Ranch II project. Chris Markle requested the council not allow a road over the grader of a 25 percent grade to connect to Sunset Creek Way. However, he noted that if the councilmembers were to allow such a road, to limit the construction to 10 homes or less which is consistent with Measure PP. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 16 December 1,2015