Laserfiche WebLink
85 <br /> <br /> He continued that with respect to the toxic issue, Staff <br />condition does not allow any development to occur on the northeast <br />quarry until the site is cleaned up. All the other issues that <br />have been brought up have had satisfactory mitigations attached. <br />Additionally, the EIRs prepared for the Presley Project to the <br />north and the A-M Homes project on the Garms Ranch to the south <br />went to great lengths regarding the mitigation measures that should <br />be adopted for those projects, essentially the same mitigation <br />measures are essentially that are attached to the Moller project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked Mr. Swift if he agreed with Mr. MacDonald's <br />analysis regarding the technical aspect of extending "C" Court and <br />if there would be any basis for extending that street to address <br />the potential traffic volume. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that Staff did not support the Planning <br />Commission recommendation because Staff felt that such a road would <br />not be feasible and would be of little benefit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that the Planning Commission was <br />concerned about the number of entries on Foothill Road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that the Planning Commission did not <br />require the elimination of the street access to Foothill Road but <br />of the left turn access; the street would still have a right turn <br />in and a right turn out access at that point. He explained that <br />what Staff is trying to do is minimize the little driveway <br />connections to the road where there is a low volume, as set forth <br />in the Foothill Road guidelines. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if A and B are considered cul-de-sacs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that both A and B would technically be <br />considered cul-de-sacs, except for the emergency vehicle access way <br />that connects the two streets. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked Mr. Swift if Staff has received any <br />correspondence from the Department of Conservation and the <br />Department of Fish and Game that indicates that they no longer <br />require an EIR on the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said no. He added that a letter from the Department <br />of Fish and Game indicates that they are satisfied with the <br />mitigation measures that were agreed upon. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if the Department of Transportation <br />received a copy of the traffic study and has indicated that the <br />study was acceptable. <br /> <br /> - 15 - <br /> 3-19-91 <br /> <br /> <br />