01 022409SP2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio said her understanding of the EIR is that we did not consider the issue significant, so there is a difference of opinion. Ms. Giffin noted this was correct. Matt Morrison, said the Sierra Club requests that the City Council not certify the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment, Staples Ranch EIR. In addition to their February 2"d letter, they noted problems of proper mitigation and loss of habitat for the San Joaquin spearscale and other inadequate proposed mitigation measures as detailed by the Alameda Creek Alliance. He urged the Council not to certify the EIR until it includes a detailed analysis and discussion of the environmental impacts and possible mitigations for the full extension of Stoneridge Drive. Insofar as the Council intends to consider whether the full extension of Stoneridge Drive and EI Charro should be part of the Stoneridge Drive Specific Amendment Staples Ranch project, that the amendment DEIR provides for its sole reference one traffic study analyzing the impacts of Stoneridge Drive, not including the results in the EIR and the amendment project DEIR repeatedly states that the Stoneridge Drive extension is not part of the analysis. It is impossible for the Sierra Club to determine the environmental consequences of the full extension of Stoneridge Drive including attainment of air quality standards, project contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation planning to emphasize public transit, pedestrian and bicycle routes. He urged the Council not to consider the environmental impacts piecemeal and request circulation of a complete EIR including consideration of the full extension of Stoneridge Drive so the City Council, Sierra Club and the public may make informed decisions based on impacts and alternatives for the entire project. The Sierra Club welcomes the opportunity to work with the City to ensure positive solutions to mitigate the Staples Ranch project in a fashion that will benefit the health and well being of residents, visitors and the biological resources found on the site. Tom Kelly said he only opposes the extension. David Stark felt completion of Stoneridge Drive will ensure the City's maintains control over the development of Staples Ranch, viability of commercial components of the plan, and that residents will have convenient access to amenities offered by Staples Ranch He asked the Council to approve Option 3 and say yes to Pleasanton's future. Paul Mercurio felt the long-term vision of the City should include the connection of Stoneridge Drive, asked the extension to go out to Livermore, and felt rubberized asphalt would reduce noise. Scott Johnson suggested rather building BART to Livermore, building a freeway from San Jose to I- 5, fixing SR 84, and felt I-580 was dysfunctional, and urged the Council to vote no on the extension. Kurt Arends, Zone 7 Water Agency, said they provided written comments on the EIR and response provided was not adequate in addressing their concerns. A follow up letter sent reiterated their concerns, which have to do with the bridge over the Arroyo and potential impacts to the channel, hydrology, biology, and Zone 7's ability to access and maintain the channel. He provided an additional letter and asked that it be included into the record. Richard Pugh, Friends of Pleasanton, said they are the joint stakeholder to the settlement agreement described in Attachment 14, expressed concern that the settlement, partnering and project work for Option 1 is being compromised. Staff has diligently worked with the community to create Option 1 ready to move forward. The MOU spelled out the design elements in a stable plan, there was no expiring of the MOU contemplated when it was created. The issue is now being mentioned as new, but in his judgment, is not new--the issue of converting Stoneridge Drive to connect to EI Charro and Jack London were on the table with the MOU, as well as the EVA, and the scare tactics of having the land stolen and participation or not of the businesses. What is new is the City Council Minutes Page 11 of 17 February 24, 2009