CCMIN110999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti asked if he had any other specific comments about the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Lymburn said he did, but now was not the time. His staff was still reeling from the recommendations, which basically create an economically unviable project. They have tried to listen to the community and acknowledge issues in a way that does not damage the project but maintains the balance of the Agreements in Principle. Mayor Tarver referred to the comments of Mayor Brown regarding appointments to the Planning Commission. Some Planning Commissioners did not support Mayor Tarver's position on the CAPP Initiative and often disagree with him. He encourages appointment with people of differing opinions because it encourages discussion. He said an important part of the Agreements in Principle was that there would be a public hearing process. Most of the Commissions have supported the plan. The Planning Commission "took a whack". That is part of its job; to review projects and say what they believe would make a good plan. He did not like what was passed on to Council because it is not a real plan. It is just a number pulled out of the air with no data behind it. Rene Steinhauer, 5524 Oakmont Circle, Livermore, representing Tri-Valley CARES, expressed his concems about the requirement for further studies regarding radionuclides. He pointed out that the Califomia Department of Health Services (CDHS) does not have authority to require actions to be taken. He believed condition 19e should be amended to assign the authority to an agency that has the power to make changes. He thought some letters from health officials had not been included in the staff report. He referred to a July 30 letter from Mee Ling Tung of the Alameda County Environmental Health Services, which encouraged involvement of the County of Alameda, Califomia Department of Health Services, the City of Pleasanton and local citizens in the investigation process. He stated that at one of the early meetings of health agencies, two representatives from Tri-Valley CARES were excluded from the meeting. He stressed the importance of public participation and believed that all citizens that have attended the last Planning Commission meeting spoke against the project. Council should take that into consideration. He felt that San Francisco did not want an election in November because there would be a larger voter tum out and the project would fail. He referred to the difficulties of testing this site and believed the EIR did not address radionuclides at all and needs more work. Bob Nickeson, 4260 Pleasanton Avenue, was opposed to the plan for the Bernal property. He thought more time should be spent on what happens to this property. He felt if the property was developed under the County approval, it would raise a lot of local opposition. He supported the City purchasing the property or anything that would change the path it is on now. Tom Gill, 6415 Amber Lane, favored purchasing the property although he thought the sales price was too much. He encouraged Council to take a straw vote on the recommendations of the Planning Commission or any other Commission that are contrary Pleasanton City Council 19 11/09/99 Minutes