PC 010803 - Laserfiche WebLink

She added that it was an issue with regard to making the road accessible to residents but not drive-through trafF c. She noted that a public street could not be gated. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Rasmussen demonstrated where the vehicular access would be provided, and where the cu7 de sac would be built. Mr_ Rasmussen noted that a temporary storm water detention pond was built on the Golf Course site to guard against heavy rains and soil erosion. He advised that after the public hearing was held, staff would conduct an alternative study of the suggested alignments. An engineering consultant would participate in exan-iining the pros and cons with staff, as well as cost analysis, grading, and geological. studies. A draft report will be developed and presented to the neighborhood, the Spotornos, the County, the Planning Commission, and City Council for further review. A final report would then be developed. The Planning Commission would be asked to make a recommendation on its preferred alternative. City Council would then decide which alternative to direct staff to implement. If it is the alternative in the Specific Plan, work would be done; if not, staff would need to initiate a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and PUD Zoning Amendment. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Rasmussen described the Golf Course conservation easements. A discussion of the Planning Commission's review process ensued. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Rasmussen replied that the colored areas on the map were part of the Specific Plan, and that the Spotorno Medium Density Residential area needed two-way access, because of the fire danger and the remoteness of the area. Chairperson Arkin advised that they would be hearing new ideas, but no opinions on existing alternative proposals. The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 9:02 p.m. Chairperson Arkin reconvened the meeting at 9.1 3 p_m_ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Christopher Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, Suite B, advised that he was the attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the Happy Valley ar~iiexation lawsuit, and detailed the history of the case. The lawsuit asked the court to stop construction of the golf course project until the matter of the bypass road was satisfactorily resolved. He inquired why alternative bypass roads were being studied, and believed that was part of the EIR process. He inquired as to what became of the original study results, and what has occurred in the interim which required new studies. He noted Mr. Spotorno's opposition to the construction of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 2003 Page 9