PC 07/16/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

supplemental EIR. The same process would apply in this case; ifa study reveals a situation, whether it be a cultural site or toxic site, and it is not anticipated that it can be remediated in a way which is contemplated in the structure of the original PUD, a supplemental CEQA process would need to be done. Commission Sullivan inquired as to whether the decision is up to staffto make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, with the Planning Commission making a recommendation, and ultimately the City Council deciding whether the EIR needed to be reopened. Mr. Swift responded that this is correct. Commissioner Sullivan suggested that if the City Council decides that there is some contamination, but based on staffs recommendation it is determined that it is not a problem and therefore the EIR is not reopened, the public may or may not really be aware there is a problem unless they attend the meeting or read the staff report. Mr. Swift advised that if the result of the testing shows a "small" contamination and the preparers of that report and the peer reviewer (if required) and all of the other State agencies say "small" is acceptable and the property can be developed, then the study would be provided to the Planning Commission. He noted that staff first looks to see whether the outcome of the study is acceptable and that the results are nothing different than when the EIR was completed. He advised that the notice to the public would be advising of the application that is being considered (for example, the vesting tentative map). The Planning Commission would look at the studies and would need to determine if they are satisfied with "small" amounts of contamination. It is within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to regulate, control, and condition the type of mitigation that would take place. Mr. Swift advised that if the results of the testing, based on the report, are something that staff feels requires no mitigation, then no subsequent CEQA process is required. The Planning Commission and City Council can disagree and require a subsequent CEQA process. If the results of the study finds something and there are recommendations for remediation, the City, at that point, has a subsequent CEQA process that it can go through - a Negative Declaration or Supplemental EIR (depending on the characterization of the significance of the impact and the type of mitigation). He advised that this process is noticed like an EIR. Commissioner Sullivan commented that one process allows for the site to be tested and decisions regarding the findings to happen rather quickly, while the current CEQA process, which the project is now in, requires that any testing that is done become part of the EIR. If the EIR is recirculated, there is a review period, with public notification, and the community is given plenty of opportunity to understand what has been found and what the impacts are. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the information he has heard since he made the motion, has reinforced his conviction that the Planning Commission should not certify the EIR this evening. He advised that the Commission has new information that is not addressed in the EIR, and the Commission does not know what or how much contamination is on the site. He commented that the other issue is the responsibility for clean-up and the potential that the City may be involved in the mitigation costs. He stated that he cannot see approving the project and take it out of the CEQA process until they find out what is there. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 July 16, 1999