PC 02/12/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

have a less-than-significant impact. The EIR also addresses potential noise impacts from park use and determined that noise impacts would be less-than-significant in terms of the city's noise standards. ~ The actual park design and types of recreational uses in the park are not approved or determined by the Specific Plan Amendment. The City's Park and Recreation Commission will generate surveys of the City's residents and sports groups and inventory the City's park needs to detennine the types of recreational uses and improvements desired. The Supplemental EIR prepared for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment focuses on the proposed changes to the Plan which affect land use and planning, traffic and circulation, noise, hydrology, and biological resources. The EIR also utilizes the proposed PUD residential development to evaluate impacts on new and existing land uses. The original Specific Plan was approved with an EIR and this is a supplemental. The EIR evaluates the proposed project against the 1986 General Plan and against the Draft 1996 General Plan policies and programs. The City's General Plan Map shows mixed uses for the Specific Plan area. The proposed amendment modifies the adopted land uses by adding 311 more housing units, reducing the size of the commercial area, and moving the park. The modifications are consistent with the land use policies and housing policies of the General Plan. The circulation plan proposed by the amendment also is consistent with the General Plan policies. ~ The Specific Plan Amendment also was evaluated in relation to the City's noise standards and the policies and programs of the Noise Element. The only policy which the project cannot meet, given the proposed location of the residential use, is Policy 1. The EIR notes that even with mitigation (the soundwall along the freeway), some of the residential outdoor areas would be exposed to 1-580 traffic noise exceeding City standards. This is the area proposed to be townhomes. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval of the project to the City Council, it needs to find that the level of noise anticipated in these outdoor areas is unavoidable and cannot be attenuated "within the realm of economic or aesthetic feasibility." Based upon the General Plan, the Commission could make the finding that outdoor areas (private and common) for the townhomes need not have the same outdoor noise standard applied to single family detached homes based upon their potentially limited use. The Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan was found to be consistent with the 1986 General Plan when it was adopted in 1989. Due to the lack of other changes in the SDSP, all other aspects of the SDSP would remain consistent with the 1986 General Plan. Three of the access and circulation policies would need to be reviewed should the amendment be approved. These are Policy 2b, 2e and 2g. The EIR evaluates the proposed amendment in relation to these environmental mitigations and found them to be consistent. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 February 12, 1997