10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson noted that the Statement of Overriding Considerations considers social and economic considerations and that the economic side was a bit sparse. He stated that his view on the project is that there are solid economic reasons why those economic considerations are important, particularly if the City looks at sustainability and buildout in the Pleasanton community. Mr. Jeung referred the question to staff. Mr. Roush replied that the Statement of Overriding Considerations was standard, based on what staff has identified, but not intended to be definitive. He noted that it is ultimately up to the City Council, who makes the decision regarding whether or not to approve the project, to indicate what it finds are the social and economic benefits. He indicated that staff would appreciate any other items the Commission feels should be included in order to take it forward to the City Council. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Ineda Adesanya, Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) planner, informed the Commission that LAFCo is still working on reviewing the EIR, noting that LAFCo is not satisfied the EIR will be sufficient for future annexation. She noted two areas of concern: the level of analysis given on the actual extension of Stoneridge Drive; and a glitch in regard to primary agricultural soils where Cortese-Knox requirements for designating prime agricultural soils is different from that of the State Lands Commission. She indicated that the County has about 72 acres which is acknowledged in the EIR, but LAFCo must decide what they should do when Cortese- Knox identifies mitigation. She noted that they in fact do not have policies in place for mitigation for designated prime agricultural land, not because they have never been used but that they have always been planned for non-agricultural issues, and that they are trying to work through this. Commissioner Olson inquired what part of analysis LAFCo would be looking for with regard to further study of a Stoneridge Drive extension. Ms. Adesanya stated that LAFCo received some information today that they may be able to consider, but because the Draft EIR refers to the traffic study as opposed to doing analysis within the document, it presents a problem if that study or the results of that study would have been included in the analysis as an alternative. Commissioner Olson inquired if it was an inclusionary issue, and Ms. Adesanya replied that this is the way she sees it now. Chair Blank asked Ms. Adesanya if she meant that even though the MOU does not contemplate the extension of Stoneridge Drive, the analysis should be included. Ms. Adesanya said yes. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 22, 2008 Page 5 of 12