PC 102208 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank stated that he believed that the gate would be more secure than those infrared sensors one could purchase on EBay. Mr. Bocian stated that the gate is designed to withhold any force to push the gate open and drive through. He noted that the graphic shows that there are bollards on both sides of the gate to restrict traffic so people cannot drive across the lawn. He noted that the gate would most likely mirror some of the Opticon gates the City has in place. Commissioner Olson inquired if there were any possibility for the City and the County to decide to change the MOU. Mr. Bocian replied that this could be done. Mr. Roush explained that if there were a decision made to extend Stoneridge Drive at this time with respect to the first phase of the project, the project description would need to be changed, additional environmental work would have to be done before the EIR could be certified, and the MOU would technically have to be changed as well. He added that all this could be accomplished. Commissioner Pearce inquired what the potential impact might be should LAFCo determine that the EIR in its current form is inadequate and if this impact would prevent the project from moving forward. Mr. Roush replied that if LAFCo were to decide that it could not approve the annexation, it would have to indicate and make findings as to why it could not do that. He continued that the City or applicant could then either go back and revise what LAFCo needed to be added to be acceptable, or challenge LAFCo and seek to overturn that decision in court on the grounds that its decision was arbitrary. Commissioner Pearce inquired if, should the City decides to revise the EIR to accommodate LAFCo's requirements, the EIR would return to the Planning Commission. Mr. Roush replied that it would most likely return because there would be a change in the project description or some other aspect for environmental work. Commissioner Pearce inquired if it is the City's recommendation that the Commission make a recommendation one way or the other with respect to the EIR. Mr. Roush replied that it is. Commissioner Pearce asked Mr. Tassano what the traffic impact of the ice center alternative would be and why it did not account for what seems a likely scenario of people pulling into the smaller parking lot more than 10 percent, driving around and not finding parking, going back out to the freeway, and coming back around EI Charro Road. She inquired what potential alternative staff would propose should this scenario became likely. Mr. Tassano noted that Commissioner Pearce had asked in an email whether the traffic study contemplated this additional traffic going back down Stoneridge Drive as an exit, thereby generating double traffic. He replied that staff looked at what it anticipated would be the most likely traffic disbursement and was comfortable with that 10 percent. He noted that there could be times where there is a heavier influx coming to Stoneridge Drive as opposed to Auto Mall Place, and he stated that there PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 22, 2008 Page 8 of 13