10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

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 would be the potential to look at this in the future. He noted that there is an area with a locked gate that separates the two parking lots, and staff could look at the potential future of moving this to better adjust for influx. Commissioner Pearce inquired how the 10 percent number was arrived at, and Mr. Tassano replied that staff worked with the Sharks to determine what its regional versus local generation was, took trip generation given the proximity of residential units to the location as opposed to Dublin and Livermore and put that into the model, and then they let the model work out where each of those distributions are going to and coming from. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 22, 2008 Page 7 of 12