PC 082615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brown stated that one of the things mentioned at the last meeting is that two of the Commissioners opted for Scenario 3 in the EIR. He pointed out that this scenario creates significant cut - through traffic from Sycamore Creek to get to Raley's, Safeway and other destinations. He added that this scenario would also open the door to more vehicle traffic if the Spotorno Property were ever developed in the future. He noted that it is certainly not a compromise for them and would make things significantly worse for their neighborhood; so EIR Scenario 3 is not a winning proposal for anyone. He stated that Staff Option 2 is fully justifiable, and the EIR connection Scenarios 5 and 7 should be looked at for further mitigations. Mr. Brown stated that on the topic of whether Measure PP should apply, as noted by Ms. Lofland, the Council has instructed that projects be considered on a case -by -case basis and those that are looking to use this project as an example are doing so on an opportune basis. He stated that he supports Option 2 and that he would be willing to support Option 3, knowing full well that the development has to have a path forward and a resolution needs to be made. Joe Reed stated that he has lived in Pleasanton for 19 years but is not new to some of the words he has heard tonight. He noted that commitments were made to one community that no new traffic would be brought through their neighborhood, and a clear document was given to the other neighborhood that they would have to expect new traffic. He indicated that he cannot see why a compromise is even being discussed. He applauded everybody here tonight for at least looking for a compromise that does the best they can. Richard Li stated that he wants to share three points: (1) The basic fairness of Ventana Hills, which clearly has a larger population, higher density, and much higher traffic. There is no good reason to introduce new traffic to this area. (2) As many people have mentioned, the safety around Mission Hills Park is really a grave concern. There are lots of sharp curves, and cars park on both sides. The visibility is very limited. There is strong concern about safety and heavier traffic in that area. (3) Measure PP is important, but in this case Measure PP is not in the position to trump safety and basic fairness. He stated that he supports Option 2 and does not think Option 3 is fair enough. Matthew Templeton expressed concern about the safety of construction access. He indicated that he investigates traffic accidents and has been involved in about 180 fatalities in the last five years and primarily for about 40 of them. He stated that Sunset Creek Lane has some common characteristics and has roundabouts, and assumed that everyone has driven both access routes to the proposed development. He pointed out that construction vehicles are bigger than cars and drivers cannot see out of them as well. He noted that the view continually changes as one goes around a traffic circle, and one is not able to see pedestrians and children who may be there. He indicated that Sunset Creek Lane is a very dangerous way to handle construction traffic. He noted on the other hand that the Junipero Street access is a straight view and has stop signs. He indicated that he does not think either street is a good access point; however, one of them is actually set up a little bit better that the other. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 18 of 43