PC 10/07/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

San Francisco's report and testimony were made a part of the record contained in the EIR. He noted that the difference between boring and soil sample is just the method of collecting samples. He stated that the hot spots were due to an instrument failure, and that was later resurveyed and soil samples were also taken at the spot. He noted that the City of San Francisco made a mistake in the formula utilized and the State of California was provided an explanation. He stated that the City of San Francisco had problems locating data and that was the reason for collecting data and soil samples in the area. He commented on the effects of plutonium to the human body. Mr. Anspaugh commented on the atoms of plutonium contained in every human's body. He noted that the plutonium detection limit is not the same as the amount of plutonium found in the area. He noted that the Department of Health Services stated there would be no further testing at this time; however, they were clear them would be future testing and that the City of San Francisco has agreed to that. He stated that the County of Alameda had indicated assurance that they would honor their agreement as specified in the development agreement. Further, that the purpose of a developer's agreement is to insulate a developer against shifting in political positions. He noted that the City of San Francisco has not steamrolled anybody and has been working on this project for 39 years. He stated that the land plan that has been developed is representative of what the community desires. Discussion ensued relating to the number of particles of plutonium that would be harmful to the human body and the effects of the filtration system. Bob Thompson of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, referenced a memorandum dated October 4, 1999 from the Office of the City Attorney and commented on legal issues relating to recirculation or re- issuance of the EIR. He noted there is concurrence by all parties that issues raised do not require recirculation of the EIR. Mr. Thompson commented on CEQA's definition of"significant." PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Widner noted that his definition of"immediate health hazard," is the health hazard given the current land use as opposed to proposed future land uses. Further, he stated that there is no health hazard on the Bemal property and that he is satisfied with the issues that have been addressed at tonight's meeting. He noted that the one issue that hasn't been addressed is the variability of some results compared to other results and he noted that is a minor issue compared to the bigger issue of dose standards that might be applied. Discussion ensued relating to clarification from staff of the recirculation of the EIR and the addendum to the EIR, whether the remediation plan will be provided to the community, whether a preliminary endangerment assessment will be conducted prior to a grading plan being approved, disclosure to potential homeowners of potential radiation, and clarification of the addendum to the EIR. Commissioner Kumaran provided background information relating to the previous denial of the EIR due to the information presented of the possibility of radionuclides being found in or near the property. He noted that the City of San Francisco interpreted that as examining the study to see the immediate health impacts from the current land use of the study. He noted that the Commission has three options: approval of the EIR with the information presented, recirculation of the EIR for public comments Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 Page 8