01 022409SP2 - Laserfiche WebLink

project and the one who receives the sale of the property as well as possible tax sharing agreement with Pleasanton, she questioned if they would pay for the annexation application. Mr. Roush did not recall specifically, but this would be the normal process. She said if the MOU is breached, does the City have a legal challenge due to the document being signed. Mr. Roush said the MOU was intended to being a roadmap with respect to the process to be followed by both the City and Authority in processing the application. He said it would probably be a stretch to find a breach of the agreement. Councilmember McGovern noted that Option 2, states "The Alameda County Surplus Property representatives would only support the variation of Option 2 if the environmental work were limited to an Addendum." She said this is not stated in the MOU and questioned how that decision would come forward. Mr. Roush said the MOU does not address that kind of detail and he does not know if the full Board has weighed in on the issue. The way the staff report was written was that the Manager, the Director and Assistant Director represented this to staff, and he did not know if they were speaking on behalf of the Board or not. City Manager Fialho said the policy objective of the MOU is that a portion of Stoneridge Drive would be an EVA, but the MOU was a policy roadmap that both parties were buying into, and what is being considered is a change in policy direction that appears to be inconsistent with the MOU. Mr. Roush said the MOU is a policy document and Councilmember McGovern confirmed that both groups would have to agree to any policy shifts. Councilmember Sullivan said the MOU signed in 2006 indicates moving forward with Staples Ranch and does not extend Stoneridge Drive, which was the basis for the Specific Plan and EIR. The Draft that went through various Commissions did not contain visible traffic information and this was only circulated in the Final EIR. Only the Final EIR contained new information that the public did not have an opportunity tc review or comment on, which seems like apiece-meal approach. From a CEQA standpoint, he suggested re-circulating the Draft EIR with that information to receive adequate public comment. Mr. Roush said this is an option the Council could consider; if it determines that the environmental impacts of extending Stoneridge Drive has not been adequately addressed in the EIR documents, including the Draft EIR and responses to comments on the EIR. The Council has discretion to say it will not certify the EIR as drafted, and direct that it be re-circulated, and revise the Specific Plan in conjunction with that. He said staff has attempted to lay out options for Council consideration, and if the Council chooses to approve the extension, staff has laid out a roadmap for that option. Councilmember Sullivan referred to Attachment 17, Analysis of Lack of Significant New Information from Concurrent Extension and questioned how the Council would consider the information since it's contrary to the City's existing policy. Mr. Fialho said the Council at the last meeting requested documentation to explain how the road can get constructed with the current environment work that has been completed. If the Council chooses to approve the road as part of its approval, Option 2 would be staff's preference because it allows for additional environmental work to be completed prior to that decision being made. Mr. Roush said the document (Attachment 17) was prepared by the Authority's attorney and staff was requested to provide the information to the Council. Councilmember Sullivan said Attachment 18 states "Draft Policy Statement by the County of Alameda and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton regarding transportation priorities and commitments in the Tri-Valley." He felt the document was to be the legal framework that all agencies agreed to. The General Plan Update talks about a timetable for construction of Stoneridge Drive extension depending upon Pleasanton reaching agreement with its regional partners for a strategic approach and funding plan. He noted that the plan was to be adopted by the City Council City Council Minutes Page 6 of 17 February 24, 2009