PC 10/07/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

should be required prior to the certification of the EIR and not at a future point of time when it may be too late to do anything. Commissioner Kumaran noted that there is a process for working with a development in the City and he commented on the process. He noted that in the EIR, if additional information surfaces prior to certifying the EIR, he would be concerned with approval and finding additional problems at a later time. He noted that the City of San Francisco's argument is that they do not know what the final specific plan might be or the grading. He noted that the City of San Francisco knows the parameters of what they want on the property and it should be used as a threshold whether the development will impact residents and future residents of this area. Commissioner rumaran noted that health-related issues do take precedence over issues such as traffic, and spoke in favor of erring on the side of being too thorough. He commented on the City of San Francisco's efforts in expediting this process and stated there must be a balance between timeliness and credibility before proceeding. He noted the timing for performing these tests is better advised in the beginning versus the end. Further, that additional time would allow for Zone 7 issues relating to flood control to be resolved. Commissioner Kumaran noted that in the end the Commission is accountable for their actions and should be acting in the best interest of the citizens of Pleasanton in following the General Plan. Further, that the citizen's health should take precedence over development that is attempting to take place at a rapid pace. He noted that the City should not be stampeded into development and there is ample time to gain answers and not rush through the process. He noted he took exception to the timing of the Sheppard and Mullin letter received by the Commission and a statement contained in the letter stating, "that the denial of the EIR and the decision of the commissioners was misplaced." Further, that the Commission's decision of putting the interest of the residents of Pleasanton first and ensuring that the General Plan is adopted, is in no way misplaced. He noted that the commissioners have expressed their ideas in the best way possible and that the City of San Francisco should take all of the Commissioner's statements into consideration and convince all of the commissioners that this project is in the best interest for the residents of the City of Pleasanton. In conclusion, Commissioner Kumaran noted that there is a problem that existed, that the City of San Francisco has determined there is no immediate health risk for the current use of the property, and that this should be expanded to consider the future use of the property, as outlined by the City of San Francisco. Further, that future use impacts be considered and circulated to the public. He expressed concern with the expediency of the process and the mount of public input received. Further, he requested that when the study is conducted it be made available to the public, with their input received prior to the Commission reviewing the project. He spoke in favor of the Commissioners unanimously deciding that the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Pleasanton is important enough not to postpone decision making but to require applicants, such as the City of San Francisco, to provide the full and complete disclosure of potential health risks that would come from the development of the Bemal property. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Roberts seeking clarification of Commissioner Kumaran's statements, Commissioner Kumaran stated he would be in favor of denying the certification of the EIR. Further, that a study be conducted expanding the scope to include the future uses of the land as proposed Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 10