PC 10/07/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

all of the contradictions have been stated for the record and he would not feel comfortable saying this test and information received was complete. He further stated that the phrase "a dog and pony show" strikes a chord with him. Commissioner Sullivan commented on the City Attorney's memorandum and he commented on the question raised, "has any new significant infoimation been provided," and he noted that due to the EIR that the Commission has been requested to certify not mentioning radioactive or radionuclide contamination on the site, when a large amount of information has been provided on radioactive contamination, there is confirmation that there is significant new information. He noted he does not understand how the Commission can ascertain that the information received is insignificant and in his opinion there is significant new information. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the Commission, the State, the public, and other jurisdictions that would normally review an EIR, have not had ample time to review information. He noted that the Commission received the test results in an ample time period; however, the staff report, consisting of ample information, was received on Monday, October 4, 1999; the letter from the City of San Francisco's attorneys was received Wednesday, October 6, 1999, with no benefit of the City of Pleasanton's attorneys review and interpretation. Further, he stated he feels he, as well as the public, has not been given ample time to review information. Commissioner Sullivan further commented that the EIR failed the test to be certified based on the statement contained in the October 4, 1999, memorandum from the Pleasanton City Attorney, that "when the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate in nature that public comment on the draft EIR was essentially meaningless." He noted that the EIR should be kept in the CEQA process, the information should be recirculated, and the public and other agencies should be given adequate time to review the information. Further, he expressed concern with the process thus far, including the reduced scope of what the Commission requested and information being received late or incomplete, such as the August 5, 1999 letter. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the City paid a peer reviewer to write a report and after conducting an off-line meeting with the City of San Francisco's scientists, another letter, completely different than the first, was generated by the peer reviewer and Commissioner Sullivan noted, in his opinion, this was a problem. Further, he expressed concern with the process of the community being excluded from the scope of the testing and he noted this goes to the heart of public trust. Further, he stated that this is a perfect reason why certification of this EIR needs to remain in the CEQA process to allow for public input to the process. Commissioner Sullivan recommended that further comprehensive testing be performed based on the existing development plan, with community involvement in the scoping and in the process. He noted that the development plan is far enough along to determine the general location of houses, businesses, and parks, and that a comprehensive test can be performed to determine if there is contamination on the site which could be a health hazard when the project is developed. Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 12