CC Min 1989-01-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ITEM NO. 2 (continued) W. Wayne Wheeler, 445 H Cork Harbor Circle, Redwood City, described his opposition citing the probable toxicity of the land fill site; the certification process violated state and local laws; the traffic figures used in the EIR were flawed; CalTrans did not receive the draft EIR; and, adverse impacts on the quality of life regarding view obstruction, density and wild Ii fe. Dr. Morris Eisenberg, 429 H Cork Harbor, Redwood City, stated traffic figures on his slides (graphs included in APP -Ex #1) show inconsistent and erroneous conclusions and the currently approved office project would result in 30% fewer trips not 33% more as stated in the EIR; and, the EIR did not check land fill for toxic materials such as PCB and cadminum. APP -Ex #2, letter from Jeff Zelikson, Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division of the EPA dated January 6, 1989 introduced at this time, stating this site will be placed "in our list of potential hazardous waste sites and (we will) conduct a PA (preliminary assessment) shortly." Brian J. Zamora, Redwood City Health Department, Director of Environmental Health, San Mateo County Department of Health stated the EIR is deficient as it has no risk analyses and requested a risk assessment of the land fill site be developed as part of the EIR. APP -Ex #3, letter from Mr. Zamora to the Mayor and Council of January 9, 1989 was introduced at this time. In response to Council questions it was agreed that Redwood City and the County Health Department would work more closely in the future to be aware of possible health matters impacting the City including any vacant land, although the Mayor explained that in this instance Mr. Zamora's Dept. did not receive notification of the EIR through the County's inadverta nce. Mr. Zamora stated that the EIR does address air pollutants but not water and soil risk factors. Mr. Zamora stated that a possible health problem in a commercial area is more easily mitigated than residential, as the work force would not remain on the site 24 hours a day. David Secrest, 461 F Cork Harbor, Redwood City cited procedural and substantive problems with the EIR citing Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 requiring "...when significant new information is added to an EIR after notice has been given...prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again... consult again ... before certifying the EIR ". Mr. Secrest cited pages 2 -20 to 2 -22 of the EIR as significant new information. Mr. Secrest also cited case law Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. University of California reversing certification of EIR for inadequate consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures and requested the EIR be remanded to the Planning Commission in order to stop the progress of this project right now, believing further study and jurisdiction of Council would not accomplish the goal of the opponents which is to stop the process of certification tonight. City Attorney Schricker described the legally CEQA regulations and explained the pages Mr. comments required by law to be included in an "significant new information." Also, citation vague and not connected to the Westport EIR. Reg.Mtg. 1/9/89 Page 3 required comment period under Secrest cited were public EIR and are not considered to case law was considered MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Page No. 261