PC 052610 - Laserfiche WebLink

2. It would also provide a site for a senior continuing care community for which the City has a very demonstrated need. A large number of seniors in this community have shown interest in this project and cannot wait for that development to occur. There will even be a greater need for living arrangements and services for that segment of the City's population in the future. 3. It would allow for the ice center, which, together with its special events, will draw people from outside of town to do business at the City's hotels, stores, and restaurants. 4. A very specific direct benefit identified is that the ice center developer has offered to construct a substantial share of the community park. Mr. Dolan then discussed some additional actions the Commission may want to take regarding non-CEQA-required matters that have been an important part of the ongoing evaluation of this project: 1. Work in cooperation with ACSPA to plant San Joaquin spearscale seeds on the community park site as part of the park construction. This is in response to input from members of the community who are interested in a greater level of mitigation for impacts to that particular species, as well as the interest of some in providing the opportunity for mitigation closer to the area where the impact would occur. 2. Construct a new soundwall along Stoneridge Drive between Guzman and Trevor Parkways, the only area along Stoneridge Drive that does not have a soundwall. This is part of the neighborhood where the front of the houses face Stoneridge Drive, thereby facing the noise source; however, the applicable standards for exterior usable space do not apply to the front yards, and, therefore, a sound wall is not required as CEQA-based mitigation. If this were to be pursued, there are multiple residents who would have to be surveyed; costs would have to be explored, and a specific design and detailed plan would have to be prepared and approved by the City Council before moving forward. Mr. Dolan noted that these actions would be the financial responsibility of the City as they are not directly associated with an impact of the project. Mr. Dolan then presented once again the actions the Commission could take: whether to recommend to the City Council to (1) certify the SEIR; (2) rescind the previous CEQA findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan, as well as the actions taken by the Council approving the Specific Plan Amendment and the pre-zoning and re-zoning of the project site; and (3) approve the revised CEQA findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan reflecting the preferred project, as well as the Specific Plan Amendment and the pre-zoning and rezoning of the property. He likewise presented PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 26, 2010 Page 8 of 27