PC 052610 - Laserfiche WebLink

so the traffic impacts would not be as severe as they are today. He stated that he felt this project does not mitigate its impacts sufficiently in that the impacts will be much greater than anticipated. He noted that certain alternatives are shown as "Not Feasible" and that impacts are "Significant but Unavoidable”; he felt that Alameda County has not stepped up to provide the proper mitigations for the project. Mr. Carroll stated that because the Stoneridge Drive extension will likely open before SR-84 is widened, before regional agreements are done, and before other anticipated arterials are open, the anticipated impacts will be much greater than originally anticipated by the community. He indicated that they stepped up and tried to work with 24, the community, but at the last minute on February 2009, the Council pushed through the Stoneridge Drive extension in advance. He added that all materials provided before then indicated that there would be an emergency vehicle access (EVA) only connection. He noted that in his previous comments, he felt there was some obligation to provide clarification, but the response was there was no further clarification required. He stated that he was looking for the City to own up and say that it realizes that all information provided before February 2009 stated that the connection on Stoneridge Drive was going to be an EVA only and that only at the last minute, it became a four-lane connection right through a neighborhood community. Mr. Carroll stated that he felt it is unfair for the City to push this through with only a small soundwall planned near the bridge area and possibly another soundwall between Guzman and Trevor Parkways, and these mitigations are fairly small in comparison with other mitigations that they had requested, such as air monitoring or air filtration in Mohr Elementary School or Hacienda School and the Saint Elizabeth Seton gym. He noted that with all this traffic coming through this neighborhood, there should be greater protections and more mitigations put in place. He added that there should be additional mitigation for Nielsen Park, which is right on Stoneridge Drive, which now has a small berm in place but should have something more substantial such as a soundwall to ensure that the public is protected. He indicated that he felt generally disappointed there is not more mitigation, that they were told they were going to be protected, and now they are being ignored.He noted that some of the biological mitigations are minimal, particularly the San Joaquin spearscale which should have a 5:1 ratio but has only a 1:1 ratio. He indicated that he was opposed to the approval of the SEIR at this point without additional mitigation. Scott Raty, speaking on behalf of the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, stated that he was in support of the Staples Ranch project and the completion of the Stoneridge Drive extension. He indicated that Staples Ranch will be a fantastic addition to the community and that he appreciated the additional work that Alameda County and the City did for environmental concerns. He compared the current economic concerns to the project, noting that jobs these days are becoming, unfortunately, closely parallel to an endangered species. With respect to the inadequacies of the mitigations that some have pointed out, Mr. Raty stated that he would like to recall when West Las Positas Boulevard was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 26, 2010 Page 16 of 27