PC 07/16/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

how the property was used in the past, that would indicate how the sampling for different chemicals and radioactive materials should be done. She noted that what tends to happen with large sites is that they wait until the conceptual plan is fairly detailed so that the future use of the property can be understood before the samples are collected. In residential areas a more dense sampling is generally done in order to evaluation conditions because this is an area with individual homes where people will live for a large portion of their lives, while in a park the sampling would be somewhat randomized over a much larger area and the necessity for dense sampling would be limited. She noted that this is one portion of how the evaluation is done for site investigations. She advised that the other portion is the identification of sources, which is fairly well outlined in the EIR. She cited examples of projects where the EIR for a development was certified prior to any site investigation. She noted that having a good idea of the grading plan enhances the ability to take samples in the right places. She advised that her evaluation of the EIR and the process it sets up appears to be fairly consistent with what is done with other large development projects and it follows the outlines of process that would be followed for any site where potential environmental contamination needs to be evaluated. If response to an inquiry from Commissioner Roberts, Ms. Holbrough stated that if the testing were done as part of the EIR she believes it most likely could reduce the efficiency of the sampling process, in that you may get some information that could help, but more information may be needed once the development plan is finalized. Chairperson Kumaran asked why one would not want to deal with a known potential problem once the problem is known. Ms. Holbrough advised that what is on the site, according to Mr. Cehn's report, is most likely to be very trace amounts and not a problem. She stated that the likelihood that the current conditions present any health hazards to people is pretty small, therefore, the necessity to do something immediately is probably not that great. She noted that the letter from the Department of Health Services does not indicate that there is an immediate necessity to conduct the testing. She advised that the current land use does not seem to pose any health threat. Discussion ensued regarding the timing for conducting the evaluation of the site. Ms. Holbrough noted that there are two features that go into deciding how the testing is done. One is the historical use of the site and the other is the proposed specific uses for areas of the property. She noted that one of the things that is characteristic of this site is that it is not continuing to change or become worst, the situation is stable and has been that way for quite some time. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the information regarding this situation was known at the time the EIR was prepared would some kind of testing been done. Ms. Holbrough indicated that testing may have been done, and in all likelihood it could have been done, but that the process still allows for a preliminary endangerment assessment of the site to be done for all chemicals. Mr. Grote provided an enlargement of the berm plan utilizing exhibits from Dan Parker's visual analysis and used the illustrative plan to demonstrate the homes that would be affected by noise. He advised that there are a lot of opportunities to reduce noise and concerns with golf balls hitting homes for the lots along the golf course. PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 July 16, 1999