Laserfiche WebLink
84 <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald replied that the issue was considered but was <br /> rejected because of the adverse effect it would have on the custom <br /> lots. He added that access from Muirwood Drive would require a <br /> bigger crossing at the Creek where a long traditional road already <br /> exists. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that it would be important to understand how <br /> the reviews that have been done meet CEQA requirements, <br /> particularly those issues addressed by Ms. Dennis, in order to <br /> determine that the impacts have been studied and have been found to <br /> be insignificant. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the City did the traffic study for <br /> 100 units that showed a 1% increase in traffic on Foothill Road and <br /> no impact or changes on the level of service on any of the major <br /> intersections. This traffic study was the equivalent of any <br /> traffic study done for any EIR that the City has done in the past <br /> and meets all the requirements of Caltrans and of the City. <br /> <br /> With regard to the Division of Mines and Geology, Mr. Swift <br /> stated that a preliminary geologic studywas done at the same level <br /> of detail that preliminary geologic studies are done in the City, <br /> whether that project requires an EIR or a Negative Declaration. <br /> This study was reviewed by the City's independent reviewing <br /> geologist to determine whether or not the project could be built on <br /> this site meeting the City's standards for acceptable risk, and the <br /> conclusion was that it can. He indicated that additional geologic <br /> studies such as specific soil studies are required, just as they <br /> are on every project site, as the final development plans are <br /> completed. He pointed out that Staff, the applicant's geologist <br /> and the City's engineering geologist did not find any potential <br /> impact that could arise in the future that would change the current <br /> plan. However, should that occur, the PUDwould be changed and the <br /> project would then go through whatever process would be necessary <br /> at that point. <br /> <br /> The Department of Fish and Game initially required an EIR on <br /> the project, and its representatives later _met with the applicant <br /> and City Staff on the site to consider the mitigation measures that <br /> they felt would reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. <br /> Staff then proceeded on the basis that the representatives ~;~re <br /> satisfied with the conditions that they had recommended and t~at <br /> were agreed upon by the applicant and that the Department no longer <br /> required an EIR on the project. <br /> <br /> - 14 - <br /> 3-19-91 <br /> <br /> <br />