Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'" <br /> <br />Carl Pretzel, 633 Glacier Court, noted that the City is allowing a nwnber of "No U-turn" signs to be <br />installed in the City. He stated he concurred with previous testimony that there will be traffic issues at <br />Arlington. He noted that the Kaiser land could not be used for residential use due to contamination on <br />the site. He noted that he previously worked at this facility and he provided an overview of what took <br />place in the buildings. He commented on the characterization of the buildings and remediation efforts. <br />He expressed concern with the size of the development being 1.1. million square feet and noted this <br />development is the size of Stoneridge mall and noted that Stoneridge Mall has a development <br />agreement. He further expressed concern with the traffic that will be generated from this development <br />and suggested that the Commission consider giving an allotment of the nwnber of cars allowed for the <br />development. He noted he would be in support of Valley Avenue extending through at Sycamore. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to conditioning the development with an allotment for traffic, potential traffic <br />impacts, the Sunol Boulevard improvements, the maximwn FAR ratios for development, compatibility <br />issues between the San Francisco Bernal property and the Kaiser property, site of proposed road <br />extension, and the possibility of a provision to realign Sunol Boulevard which would provide a greenbelt <br />between the neighbors and Sunol Boulevard to alleviate the neighbor's concerns relating to noise and <br />traffic. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny moved that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council <br />findiDg that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that a resolution be <br />adopted approving the attached draft Negative Declaration. Chairperson Roberts seconded the motion. <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern with whether the Negative Declaration is adequate to address <br />contamination and remediation issues. He expressed concern with noise in this area and noted his <br />concurrence that noise levels should be examined at build out. Commissioner Sullivan noted that when <br />visiting the San Francisco Bernal property, he identified a fox on the property in the southwest comer. <br />He expressed concern with the adequacy of the biological survey ifhe identified wildlife within 15 <br />minutes of visiting property. He noted he would not vote in favor of approving the Negative <br />Declaration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny noted that a condition could be applied to require mitigation measures on the <br />property prior to development. Commissioner Sullivan further noted that no EIR has been conducted on <br />the property. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to the need to conduct an EIR of the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin expressed support with the motion made by Commissioner Kameny. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Kameny, seconded by Chairperson Roberts, findiDg that <br />the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that a resolution be <br />adopted approving the attached draft Negative Declaration. <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />January 12,2000 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br />