PC 020806 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Ms. Decker suggested that the regulaz meeting be moved to March 29, 2006 or be deleted from the calendar. The Commissioners concurred that the meeting should be held on March 29, 2006. Chairperson Arkin requested an email notification of the date change. Stoneridge Extension Commissioner Blank noted that he had received a voicemail from a resident who did not leave a name or phone number. The caller expressed concern about the closed session of the City Council and whether there were discussions about negotiating a Stoneridge Drive extension. Mr. Roush noted that the closed session item was part of the Staples Ranch development that is under consideration by the Council. He noted that the issue addressed what would happen to the Stoneridge Drive extension if that property were developed, and what the terms would be under which the City would acquire that land and/or the pazkland. The Council would address this proposed agreement with the County at its February 21, 2006 meeting, in terms of coming up with a roadmap with respect to how the Staples Ranch development can be processed. He noted that the issue of the extension would be part of that discussion. There was an interest on the Council's part and most of the Commission to see what could be done to prevent Stoneridge Drive from being extended. He noted that it was part of the General Plan now. He emphasized that there would be no "backroom deals" to extend Stoneridge Drive and added that the Council understood the community's feeling on that issue. /'.-~ Commissioner Blank suggested that instead of using the phrase "Stoneridge Extension," "Stoneridge Routing" could be used. Commissioner Roberts suggested that the caller could have read an editorial in the Tri-Valley Herald, where there writer had suggested that the County was going to insist that Stoneridge Drive be extended or the County would not let the City have Staples Ranch and the car lot. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the public's understanding of this issue, Mr. Roush replied that the City and Council are working towards effecting a Memorandum of Understanding which will be presented to the Council for action. He added that would be a public heazing where the public could look and comment on it. The same noticing would be used as for all of the Staples Ranch project. St. Mazv's Street In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin to discuss this item, Ms. Decker replied that a condition of approval for the Oddfellows Building provided that any changes visible to the public would return to the Planning Commission prior to any action taken by staff. The original approval was in December 2004 and returned to the Planning Commission for a vaziety of substantive changes on January 26, 2005. She noted that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 2006 Page 16 of 18