PC 052610 - Laserfiche WebLink

February 2009. He noted that the most critical date is September 2009, when a lawsuit against the City was settled, and as part of that agreement, the City agreed to prepare an SEIR to address some of the issues raised in that lawsuit. He added that at the same time, introduced into the process was the concept of an additional alternative, the Two-Lane Constrained Extension Alternative, which is discussed in the SEIR and the staff report. Mr. Dolan then displayed a map of the area, showing the outline of the original Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan area, of which Staples Ranch is only a portion. He also displayed the Staples Ranch Land Use Map which showed the various proposed Staples Ranch projects: the continuing care retirement community facility, the auto mall, the neighborhood and community parks, and the area reserved for retail commercial. He noted that the Commission has already made a recommendation on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals for the individual projects, which will come before the Council should the items being discussed tonight get approved by the Council. Mr. Dolan indicated that the purpose of the SEIR is to address several issues as required by the settlement agreement: (1) determine whether the supplemental updated surveys for various plants and animals would result in impacts different than were identified in the Final EIR, in particular, the California tiger salamander, the California red-legged frog, the Western pond turtle, and the San Joaquin spearscale; (2) update the analysis related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is primarily in response to an evolving regulatory world which, over the period of time that this project has been in process, has changed substantially and continues to evolve such that the conclusions have changed in this updated analysis; and (3) re-evaluate the previous analysis of the project's impacts on cumulative biological resources and noise impacts in relation to the nearby quarry operations. Mr. Dolan stated that one of the biggest issues related to the request for an SEIR was the fact that the previous EIR did not include the precise project that the Council approved in February 2009. He noted that while all the information regarding its environmental impacts were in the environmental and other documents, the project was not explicitly identified as an alternative; thus, that particular project, and its impacts, have been included in the SEIR. He indicated that the SEIR also included an additional alternative, a Two-Lane Constrained Extension Alternative, since that evolved as a potential policy choice that the Council may wish to consider. Mr. Dolan stated that in terms of its scope, the SEIR is not an all inclusive document and is intended to be used in conjunction with the Final EIR. He noted that the SEIR only presents the information that was challenged as being inadequate, so it was not necessary to repeat everything that was included in the previously approved EIR. He added that the SEIR is just like a regular EIR in that staff prepared responses to the comments and recommendations received during the comment period from the public, the Commission, and outside agencies, and staff made revisions to the Draft EIR text where necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 26, 2010 Page 4 of 27