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