CCMIN022409SP(2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Bocian noted that the 1989 Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan required the re-alignment of the Arroyo Mocho. Alameda County pursued this, completed the work, and during the course of the mitigation work, relocated the spearscale into the Arroyo. There is current ongoing monitoring of the situation, and information to date shows it to be adequate and successful. Staff and consultant's assessment is that the EIR relating to this issue is adequate and that any impact on the spearscale would be less than significant. However, notwithstanding this, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has agreed to provide for the spearscale as part of the Staples Ranch project, it has agreed to either purchase credits or land at another appropriate mitigation area within Alameda County for an equivalent acre of spearscale habitat. In addition, staff has also indicated that there is an open space portion of the 17 acre community park and the potential exists to populate some of the spearscale in the area. Councilmember McGovern said the staff report states that the environmental impacts of the extension have generally been adequate and consistent with CEQA. She read the final EIR report that states (to the California Transportation Dept), "The commenter requested evaluation of the proposed project with the Stoneridge Drive extension. Staff replied that because the project description does not include the Stoneridge Drive extension and therefore the timing of construction of the Stoneridge Drive extension is not known, undertaking extensive analysis is speculative and hence, not required by CEQA. The analysis presented in the Draft EIR therefore assumes the extension would not be completed by 2015." Mr. Roush said the analysis concerning the full extension was done in a number of different contexts. Staff did look at the impacts that would result in the cumulative development, i.e., at build out. There was also analysis done for the 1989 specific plan which assumed the extension would be a part of that plan, as well. It is true that the project description did not specifically include the full extension, but the traffic report done for the EIR and in response to comments would allow the conclusion that the analysis had been done. He believed the analysis was done to the extent where the Council could draw the conclusion that the environmental impacts have been adequately addressed. Councilmember McGovern questioned the statement that it was "speculative and not required by CEQA", and questioned if the public would believe that it was not fully done and did not have a chance to make public comment regarding the full extension of Stoneridge. She noted there are four intersections that continue to operate at unacceptable levels with the Stoneridge Drive extension in the first phase of the project; 1) Hopyard at Owens; 2) Santa Rita at Stoneridge -this intersection was not listed as an impacted intersection in the Draft EIR. She said mitigations required there are extensive and asked if they would be the responsibility of the project developer if approved tonight. Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano said the mitigation for the first intersection is part of the City's traffic impact fee. The developer contributes to this. The second intersection is not included in the traffic impact fee but has been identified through one of the responses to comments to Caltrans that it is an impact and mitigation would be required. Councilmember McGovern said Santa Rita at Valley will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service with the extension of Stoneridge Drive. The extension removes 250 cars from the intersection but the critical movement of southbound left turn from Santa Rita to Valley continues to exceed capacity. Mitigations are extensive including construction of the second Valley Avenue westbound left turn and construction of either a Santa Rita northbound turn or a third Santa Rita southbound turn, with traffic signals retimed and optimized for traffic volumes. She questioned the traffic mitigations if Stoneridge Drive goes through. City Council Minutes Page 3 of 17 February 24, 2009