That guest perspective was wrong

He claims “residents had limited opportunity to make only timed comments.” Wrong. Eleven focus groups were conducted, including one specifically for Mr. Braunstein’s affluent neighborhood. There was also an in-person open house event at Hidden Canyon where the public had a two-way dialogue with both city staff and consultants. The PROS survey allowed the public to make narrative comments in their responses. There was even a dedicated PROS email address set up to receive public input.

Mr. Braunstein claims there was no discussion of what safety measures protect users in a mixed-use setting. Wrong again. This was thoroughly discussed, and specific recommendations were made for increased trail sight lines, improved signage, calming features to slow traffic, and respite/passing areas on trails.

Mr. Braunstein claims “The PROS Committee did not engage in discussion.” Huh? It had five meetings where issues were robustly discussed.

Mr. Braunstein complains that other cities’ policies weren’t considered. If he paid attention to the consultant’s presentations, he would have known that plans and policies from other jurisdictions were evaluated, including Los Angeles and Marin County. He complains no traffic studies were done, which shows he doesn’t understand that the PROS plan is a broad guidance document, not a blueprint. Traffic studies come when specific projects are implemented.

In short, Mr. Braunstein’s guest perspective demonstrates either complete ignorance of the plan’s purpose and what actually transpired in the PROS process, or a very disingenuous misrepresentation of facts.

Paul Sheng

Belmont