01 022409SP2 - Laserfiche WebLink

each agency in the Valley that shows not only what the local arterial network looks like with some timing, but also what the region's commitments are to SR 84, 1580 and 1680, or Alternative 1-A developed through the Triangle Study that shows SR 84 in its proper placement. Councilmember McGovern questioned how she would know when the agreement comes back that it is a legal document that cannot be changed. Mr. Fialho said it is a policy document and not a contract. His sense is that we would want each city to act on it via resolution that describes what the intent is. Assuming this is done staff would bring it to the Council for action. Mayor Hosterman agreed with the direction. She said there was a time when she was first elected when she formulated strong opinions regarding Stoneridge Drive extension; regional improvements had to be in place prior to the Council ever moving forward with completion of Stoneridge Drive. Changes have occurred, we find ourselves in tough economic times, and she has a fiduciary duty to ensure that the City is fiscally sound. Businesses are closing, sales tax revenues will be gleaned from Staples Ranch and she supported moving forward with the Stoneridge Drive extension in tandem with Staples Ranch. She further discussed the need to ensure proper timing, addressing environmental concerns, said she has changed her position, she said addressing congestion in the Valley must be linked to improvements of SR 84 and our regional partners are willing to do this. Mayor Hosterman said the EIR did analyze cumulative conditions at build out when the General Plan assumed Stoneridge Drive would be completed to EI Charro as a four lane arterials. The EIR also analyzed the impacts that would result if the remainder of the 1989 Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan were built, which included the full completion of Stoneridge Drive. She believed the final EIR more than adequately addresses all environmental impacts of the Staples Ranch project and completion of Stoneridge Drive because there are no substantial changes proposed which would require major revisions to the EIR and/or there is no new significant information. And, in the event that new information arises subsequent to the certification of the EIR, an Addendum could be utilized to identify any project revisions and any resulting mitigation. She felt Pleasanton was lucky to develop a new revenue stream to add to its ability to deliver services to its citizens. She supported Option 3. Councilmember Sullivan said he is troubled by the process and how the Council got to this point from where we started with the MOU. He is concerned about the lack of transparency, concerned about the lack of Council and community input on the regional framework of when we extend Stoneridge Drive, concerned about the undue influence the Chamber of Commerce has had on this decision, and concerned that the County has reversed itself over its commitment to us when the process started, and that the Council is now going back on that commitment it made to him as a Councilmember and the community. He said this project could have been stopped a long time ago and the Council saw the value in it and worked out a compromise with regional neighbors and the community, and having a separate process to address Stoneridge. He felt we could achieve these things in another way, said he disagreed and said he does not believe the EIR is adequate regarding traffic impacts and habitat mitigation. City staff and the City Attorney recommend not going with Option 3 due to the risk of litigation. He thinks Option 3 meets the test for piece mealing a project and he felt there is significant risk. He said if the City keeps its compromise and commitment, we will have a means of doing something that is in the best interest of the community, which is not being done tonight. He discussed his involvement with the Friends of Pleasanton and Pleasanton First on a park agreement which is an example of something the City went back on its commitment to, as well. Councilmember Sullivan felt building Stoneridge Drive extension would do nothing for the City from a traffic standpoint, said SR 84 is the key to helping us, which is being leveraged with Stoneridge Drive. City Council Minutes Page 16 of 17 February 24, 2009