CCMIN110999 - Laserfiche WebLink

to the Principles of Ageement. He especially supported condition 18 which required Council review of all project impacts and the ability to require additional mitigations. He felt that even if the purchase question is settled in March, there is still the issue of resolving the radiological concerns. He supported commencing negotiations and deciding the question of when an election can be held. If we don't make it for March, then have an election in June on buying the property and put the project on in November. Matt Morrison. 5581-A Sonoma Drive, indicated that if there is any contamination on the property, the City of Pleasanton is responsible for mitigation no matter who owns the property. He had comments on one of the condition changes in the Specific Plan, but if Council is continuing its decision on the Specific Plan and the EIR, he would save his comments and only address the sale. He believed the sale price of $100 million is based on the County plan of 2600 homes. He felt the sale price should be based on the preferred plan of 1900 homes because there are additional expenses and difficulties associated with a development in Alameda County. He agreed it was necessary to know what the proposed uses would be for the property before going to a vote on a bond measure. When San Francisco had its elections on bond measures for a hospital, ballpark, etc. there was already a constituency in support of the uses. He felt it was impossible to get everything ready for the ballot in four weeks. Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court, indicated he had comments on the Planning Commission recommendations but would save those for later. He suggested putting the staff reports on the website because it is sometimes difficult to get to City Hall to pick up reports. He believed the value of the San Francisco property had increased since this process started. He did not see how the Planning Commission recommendations drastically changed the project or made it infeasible. He indicated many people are talking about the purchase of the property, but only have the information they see in the newspapers and are just speculating on what the assessment for their properties would be. People are forming opinions now and Council needs to get information on the uses of the property and the impact to the citizens out there very quickly. Marion Fulk, 5116 Diane Lane, Livermore, indicated he had reviewed the environmental report with close attention to radiation measurements. He was concerned that no particle size was mentioned and cancer was the only genetic disease considered. He related information regarding background radiation and exposure to ionizing radiation. He disputed the methods of establishing benchmarks and indicated there is more biological information available today which indicates there are more threats than previously known. He referred to an article on genetic damage and urged Council to be very careful in the testing of this property. Ms. Michelotti asked if Council was going to make a decision on the EIR. That was necessary before anything else could be done. Pleasanton City Council 20 Minutes 11/09/99