CCMIN022409SP(2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan said when the Draft EIR was circulated; some of the information was not available for the community and region to comment on. In the Final EIR, while there may be some minor improvements in certain locations, it is not optimal at solving traffic problems, and he felt there might be a misperception that it is. Councilmember Sullivan referred to Table 33, page 49, which lists a couple dozen intersections, that shows the difference with and without the extension, and there is very little difference. This was also identified at the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission/City Council workshop where the General Plan was looked at with and without Stoneridge Drive extension. Mr. Tassano said Stoneridge Drive has benefited arterials where arterials run into freeways at build out, and we see a much greater need at build out to get the Hacienda business people in and out with an additional location. At build out, when the circulation network is completed, some of the improvements identified in the interim, such as Santa Rita at Valley, are not necessary in the future because EI Charro Road connects to the north, and freeway and regional improvements will be in place. Mitigations identified in the General Plan, in the traffic fee, and future development requirements will improve LOS in locations in the a.m. and p.m. Councilmember Sullivan said one discussion they constantly have is widening Highway 84 to four lanes and it has not yet been included in any City specific traffic studies. This widening shows a major improvement to all arterials and shows traffic going on Highway 84 between I-680 and 1580 where it belongs. He said this would seem to be the "silver bullet" and believed it should be included in discussions and in this EIR and the General Plan EIR. City Manager Fialho said the reason it was not included in the General Plan Update is because Council directed staff not to include widening of SR 84 in the City's traffic modeling. By not including the improvements it worsens the LOS at various intersections. Councilmember Sullivan suggested the Council reconsider that decision, and Mr. Fialho agreed it should be included in the traffic model. Councilmember Sullivan referred to payment of fees as mitigations, and questioned if noise, air quality, pedestrian safety mitigations were identified along Stoneridge Drive, as there are several sections with no sound walls. Ms. Giffin said these have been addressed in the cumulative analysis in Chapter 5. Councilmember McGovern said the MOU addresses Stoneridge Drive with a two lane bridge and improvements to accommodate land use but not through traffic; the dedication of right-of-way for future Stoneridge Drive to EI Charro and the I-580 interchange; describes a map showing required improvements for the Staples Ranch project, but not an extension of Stoneridge Drive to EI Charro. In the event the City removes the extension from its General Plan, the right-of-way dedication by the Surplus Authority will immediately return to the Surplus Authority, and the MOU does not limit the City's discretion to remove Stoneridge Drive from its General Plan, nor does it obligate the City to construct the extension. She questioned if any Board Supervisors were on the Board of the Surplus Authority. City Manager Fialho said yes, Supervisor Scott Haggerty sits on the Board. Councilmember McGovern referred to the cost sharing agreement with Livermore, the Authority, and Pleasanton for improvements to the EI Charro Specific Plan area, and Staples Ranch, and read Section 7.2. She confirmed with the City Attorney that Livermore has indicated they would not interfere with the annexation into Pleasanton, and questioned if the Authority, in any section of the agreement, states anything about annexation. Mr. Roush said no, there is no similar provision with respect to the Authority. Councilmember McGovern said since the Authority is the developer of the City Council Minutes Page 5 of 17 February 24, 2009