PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Priscaro stated that with the first option that is being proposed in the EIR, the only people who will suffer are the people who are already suffering from cut - through traffic on Ventana Hills and Mission Park. He indicated that it is time for Bridle Creek to share some of that pain. He strongly recommend that the Commission seriously consider the other alternatives and adhere to commitments that have been made over the years. Jim Merryman stated that a number of pro's and con's have been discussed for all the options, but they all pale in comparison to the City's responsibility to keep its commitments, and in this case, its commitments to Ventana Hills to not add any traffic. He indicated that good governance would suggest that the City needs to keep these promises to its citizens because otherwise, there would be no reason to take into account any promises made today or tomorrow by this or any other City agency. He asked the Commissioners to consider those commitments and their responsibility to the citizens. Tim Chu stated that as one of the earlier speakers mentioned, this is a contentious matter, and in meetings that he has attended in the past, certainly an emotionally charged issue. He indicated that he has young children and, again as another speaker earlier mentioned, all parents love their children and everyone cares about safety, noise, pollution, and traffic. He indicated that he has friends in Ventana Hills and empathize with its residents. He asked the Commission to look at the data, the information, and the law when faced with difficult decisions like this; remain as objective as possible; and inject a healthy dose of common sense and equity into its decision - making. He then posed a series of questions for the Commission to consider: Does the EIR, which was created by an independent expert, matter? Do the recommendations of that report matter? If you disregard those recommendations, what kind of precedent does that set for the Commission and for the City and for the residents of Pleasanton? Does adhering to Measure PP, which was passed overwhelmingly by the residents of Pleasanton a couple of years ago under the banner of Save our Hills, matter? What are the longer term implications of not abiding by the restrictions and the terms of that law? He asked that, no matter what decision the Commission makes, it also consider speed and safety mitigation measures that perhaps would be funded by Greenbriar to minimize any impact to any neighborhood that would be affected by the ingress and egress to the Lund Ranch development. James Frost commended Mr. Dolan on his very detailed and fair presentation. He indicated that his primary concern is with Measure PP, noting that it was an enormous effort and that he was part of it to get it passed. He added that everybody who was involved should have a round of applause because obviously it was very effective, taking nearly 150 units down to 50. He noted that the problem with this, as with anything that is proposed or passed, is that people start to nibble away at it and make changes, and it starts to get eroded so that eventually, its value or meaning goes away. He asked the Commission to hold on to the real intentions of Measure PP, which means that a road cannot be built up that hill. Mr. Frost referred to a comment made that there were signs posted in the Bridle Creek /Sycamore Heights area regarding the road and noted that they were not installed until several years after Bridle Creek was sold out, so the Bridle Creek residents never saw PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 27 of 46