10 - Laserfiche WebLink

impacts if the City agrees to construct the road with the other public roadway improvements. To meet this timeline, staff assumes that any decision to accept this proposal would need to be made no later then at the time the project development agreement is approved. Supervisor Haggerty has also indicated that he will not recommend that the ACSPA pay for the road if the City does not agree to the extension at that time. (Attachment 15) In addition, some time after the final submittal date for comments on the EIR, the City received a letter (Attachment 16) from the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) expressing, in part, concern that the Draft EIR did not fully analyze the impact of Stoneridge Drive being extended with the project. (The cumulative traffic impacts with Stoneridge Drive are included in the EIR.) The LAFCo letter also suggests that the lack of this information could require it to conduct its own CEQA review prior to taking action on the proposed annexation. Because LAFCo's letter was received on July 18, 2008, which was considerably after the June 4, 2008 close of the DEIR comment period, a City response was not included in the EIR. However, staff did comprehensively address LAFCo's traffic concerns in a separate response letter (Attachment 16) which included traffic data for the project with the Stoneridge Drive Extension. As the Council is aware, the annexation of the site must be approved by LAFCo if the project is to be developed in Pleasanton. Finally, throughout the EIR and preliminary planning review process, staff has received public comments, pro and con, regarding the roadway extension. Regardless of the many issues related to the roadway extension, the EIR and the Specific Plan Amendment are based on staff's interpretation of the MOU and other documents, including the Joint Statement, that have been approved by the City Council since it approved the MOU. Nevertheless, the overarching op Ijcy of when Stoneridge Drive would be extended has not been fully resolved and will continue to be an issue throughout the remainder of the planning process. Accordingly, if the Council is interested in reviewing these issues including the addressing of regional transportation objectives, Supervisor Haggerty's proposal, LAFCo's concerns, environmental issues, and resident comments, staff recommends the Council call for a special meeting at which time these issues would be discussed in further detail. Page 9 of 10