04 ATTACHMENT 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

and truck traffic, Drafr EIR, page 45); TR-11 (neighborhood residential streets, Draft EIR, page 46); and Impact TR-12 (construction traffic, Draft EIR, page 46). Certain other project-level transportation impacts may differ in the event the Project is revised ro include the Concurrent Extension. As indicated below, the identification of these four Concurrent Extension Impacts do not constitute "new significant information" requiring recirculation of the EIR because the Draft F.IR's cumulative analysis and Existing Specific Plan Alternative analysis already identify and assess them. Further, the EIR's suppocting traffic study verifies this conclusion. While the Drafr EIR transportation analysis assumes, and therefore focuses on, the Deferred Extension, it explains that the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment -Staples Ranch Technical Memorandum for Tra~fic and Circulrttiori, December 7, 2007, revised March 20, 2008 (the "Staples Ranch Traffic Report") also analyzed the Concurrent Extension under project-level conditions, and refers the reader ro the Staples Ranch Traffic Report for an assessment of the potential transportation impacts of the Project under the Concurren[ Extension. (See, Draft EIR pages 3.9-1 and 5-34). Each of the Concurrent Extension Impacts is discussed below under the corresponding impact category in the Draft EIR, along with analyses of other key traffic impacts that would not impacted by including the Concurrent Extension with the Project. A. Impact TR-I. Pleasanton Intersections. A comparison of Tables 34 and 35 of the Staples Ranch Traffic Report indicates that the significant level of service impac[s of the Concurrent Extension under the Project are the same or less than those of the Deferred Extension in all but two of the intersections within the City. A comparison of Tables 36 and 37 of the Staples Ranch Traffic Report yields the same resuh for the Ice Center Alternative. (i) Concurrent Extension Impact Number 1 In the first instance, and with regard to both the Project and [he Ice Center Alternative, the Concurrent Extension would generate traffic which would contribute to an unacceptable level of service at an intersection that, under the Deferred Extension, would not have been subject to the same significant impact until 2030 under cumulative conditions (Intersection No. 53, in the AM and PM peak hour for the Projec[ and in die PM peak hour for the Ice Center Alternative; see Draft EIR Table 4-7 and Table 5-16). As such, the Concurrent Extension would introduce the significant impac[ at an earlier date than the Deferred Extension, bu[ the impact remains the same and would be mitigated to a less than significant level by imposing the same mitigation measure (TR-7C, Improve EI Charro at Stoneridge) identified by the llraft EIR at the project level and incorporated as part of the Project by the Final EIR. (see, Final EIR amending project description to make TR-7C part of the Project, Final EIR, page 3-117.) In addition, the Staples Ranch Traffic Report analysis, which assessed the impact of the Concurrent Extension, recommended the same mitigation measure at a project level. (See, Table 35 and 37 of the Staples Ranch Traffic Report) "Phis analysis is included in the Draft EIR because the Draft EIR incorporates the Staples Ranch Traffic Report by reference and specifically refers ShiS i~l?/9S;v5