01 022409SP2 - Laserfiche WebLink

indicate that re-circulation is appropriate to address such information. Councilmember McGovern said she therefore supported re-circulation. Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. Pat Cashman, Director of Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, said over the last year, ever since the Draft EIR was released, it set off a fire storm with other communities and LAFCO that the County changed its stance. He said he felt the project would run into a brick wall if it goes forward without the extension. The MOU has not been amended but they have proposed in several letters changes to the MOU, the most significant of which is should the City change its mind and elect to build Stoneridge Drive concurrent with their project, we would build the cost of it in their estimation, which is about $5 million. In addressing some hard-to-define or hard-to-quantify mitigations that might be required, they have added $1 million for the City to use to address offsite mitigations, in addition to the traffic impact fees from the developers. He said they are not prepared to go to LAFCO without the extension. He has participated in Tri-Valley meetings, heard the perspective from a regional basis that Stoneridge Drive fits into the mosaic, and representatives in other communities and their LAFCO representatives are adamant about the issue. He said they see the project as requiring the extension. He reminded the Council that Stoneridge Drive is part of the City's Specific Plan. Because it is part of the Specific Plan, it is subject to a less rigorous review, but nevertheless it is rigorously analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR. They believe Option 3 is the preferred option. If more process is required, he said Option 2 could be approved, but he does not want to see the Specific Plan and Stoneridge Drive separated. If this is chosen, the offer by them to fund $6 million is taken off the table. Councilmember Sullivan said it is interesting how circumstances change at the last minute when it is almost too late to do something about it. Mr. Cashman noted the EIR changed in response to Caltrans, Dublin and LAFCO's concerns. Councilmember Sullivan said this community went along with this because they thought there was a commitment to a process and now it is something else. He said Mr. Cashman has responded to the region but not to the City of Pleasanton. Councilmember McGovern presented a letter from LAFCO to the City about the EIR and it came in after the period for comments. The City's letter back to LAFCO states that the comments are not timely and that the City's responses are not in the Final EIR. Mr. Cashman said LAFCO will be a responsible agency that will have to decide on its own terms whether the EIR is adequate or not. She said LAFCO's first point to the City about anything was dated July 18, 2008. Ann Pfaff-Doss said she felt it would be a benefit to the City for Stoneridge Drive to be extended. Sanject Kumar disapproves the Stoneridge Drive extension. Billie Otis said those in favor of the extension say it is for the good of all in Pleasanton because it improves traffic circulation and safety. She voiced concern with timing of construction phases of the Draft Policy Statement regarding Transportation Priorities and Commitments, EI Charro and Stanley has been omitted, she questioned if Dublin, Livermore and Alameda County stand by the policy, and the commitment and timing of SR 84 construction. Nancy Harrington supported making Stoneridge Drive a through street all the way to Livermore. Stacey Borsody felt that the extension of Stoneridge Drive in conjunction with the development of Staples Ranch is the only option that is in the best interest for all of Pleasanton. Becky Dennis spoke regarding one of the problems listed with Option 3 and noted that some community members may not be satisfied unless additional environmental work is done, but she felt City Council Minutes Page 8 of 17 February 24, 2009