PC 10/07/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

by San Francisco's parameters to ensure that development would not have a hazardous impact on health for the residents of Pleasanton. Commissioner Maas commented on the different ways the Commissioners view the process. She noted she viewed it as looking at the EIR, certifying it, ensuring the EIR addresses all of the concerns, and then deciding on the density, the product mix, and the overall plan. She stated that then the plan goes out and the Commission knows what it is expecting as far as land use and the testing for these uses can be determined. She advised that, in her opinion, this is the important part. She noted the Commission disagrees on the procedure. She noted that a considerable amount of time has been taken on this EIR and that she cannot remember a project that the Commission has given so much thought to ensure a good project. She noted that her fellow commissioners were concemed with the hazards on the site and now it is know that nothing new or significant has been reported back. She stated that the tests clarified and amplified what is contained in the EIR relating to the radionuclides. Further, Commissioner Maas noted that the peer review has stated there is no immediate health hazard with the current land use. She noted that testing will be continued, which is the natural procedure, and that there is a modification, as a condition of approval, to specify the tests to be performed. Further, that the State of California and the peer reviewer will oversee future testing and any issues on the property will be ascertained. She noted that even if additional time was given, the Commissioners will still not agree on the testing that was performed, and that is the reason for the State, the County officials, and the peer reviewer's involvement to assist the Commission in making a decision. She noted she was content with the findings, as she was in July 1999, and that nothing new has been ascertained relating to the Bernal property. Further, she noted there is agreement that further testing is necessary. She commented on the October 4, 1999 letter from the City Attorney and noted the City would not want to be open to litigation. She stated that the City Attorney has advised that there is no new substantial environmental impact that has come out of the report and there is no substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts. In conclusion, she noted she would be in favor of certifying the EIR. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the end of the last meeting when the issue of development in the County was brought up, he was encouraged when the City of San Francisco noted there would be further testing of the Bernal property; however, he was disappointed when he saw the results of the testing. He noted that the scope of what was requested by the Commission was significantly reduced and he was the maker of the motion both times previously to not certify the EIR. He noted there was discussion on several issues other than the immediate health risk, including the liability of responsibility for problems, the timing, and that at least two of the commissioners who voted to deny the EIR agreed that complete testing should be performed prior to the plan being approved. He stated that the overriding message from the Commission was to get a comprehensive answer on issues, and that the immediate health risk was an issue; however, there were many other issues that the Commission requested answered. He expressed concern with the process only addressing the immediate health risk due to his belief that the Commission requested clarification of other issues. Further, he noted that the City of San Francisco is working to get the third vote from the Commission to approve certification of the EIR. Commissioner Sullivan noted that even after the test results were presented and all the input presented this evening, there are still too many unanswered questions and too many contradictions. He noted that Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 11