Laserfiche WebLink
87 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver to deny the Negative Declaration <br />for PUD-90-19, Moller Properties, and to require the project to do <br />an EIR. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that the real purpose of CEQA is to <br />provide environmental information to the decision makers. He <br />indicated that with the volume of work that has been done on the <br />project, as well as the issues and potential impacts that have been <br />raised and mitigated, he has the necessary information to conclude <br />that the environmental impacts of the project have been mitigated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that unlike Mr. Butler's conclusion, he felt <br />that all the information submitted on the project indicates that <br />the project would have a significant impact on the environment. He <br />added that the studies on the surrounding development do not apply <br />to the 198-acres between them. He indicated that he would not <br />support the Negative Declaration. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Butler, that <br />Resolution No. 91-37 be adopted, based on a review of an initial <br />environmental impact study done for this project and on a finding <br />that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in <br />the City's guidelines and on further finding that a negative <br />declaration is appropriate in connection with PUD-90-19, the <br />application of Moller Properties for development plan approval to <br />construct a total of 99 residential units on a 198 acre site, <br />generally located to the west/northwest of the Foothill Road/ <br />Muirwood Drive street intersection. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: Councilmembers Scribner and Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that he would not be participating in <br />the discussion on the proposal because of his previous finding that <br />not enough research was done on the project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr noted that Condition No. 2e allowed the use of stucco <br />in a limited amount. She inquired why Ms. Greist thought it was <br />banned. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that there was some initial discussion about <br />the provision in the Foothill Road Design guidelines regarding the <br />use of manmade materials on the design of houses within the <br />Foothill Road Corridor, and the Design Review Board approved a <br />compromise plan in conjunction with the use of other natural <br /> <br /> - 17 - <br /> 3-19-91 <br /> <br /> <br />