CC 07-07-2022 Item No. 14. Proposed Amendments to Environmental Review Committee_Late Written Communications1
Lauren Sapudar
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, July 7, 2022 10:07 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:June 7 City Council, Item 14 Environmental Review Committee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk: Please put this in the official report for this meeting Thank you.
2022‐7‐7 City Council
June 7 City Council, Item 14 Environmental Review Committee
Good evening, Mayor Paul, Councilmembers and City Manager:
It is not a good idea to make this change to the ERC. Also, I recommend that all ERC meetings be on video recordings as
are the City Council and Planning Commission are. These meetings touch on many aspects of the City and decisions will
impact the timing and the cost of projects.
I attended an ERC meeting on May 19.
Agenda Item No. 2 addressed a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on a property that proposed to add a few homes
to the original property. The Recommended Action was for the ERC to consider the MND the appropriate environmental
review document for the proposed project. I took notes of what I heard that morning.
Planning Commissioner Scharf asked what the justification was for not doing more soil samples around the whole
site. He was advised that staff had followed professional written guidance. Commissioner Sharf was not convinced with
that answer. He stated he thought the borings may have been done in such a way to avoid finding contamination. That
was a bold and shocking assertion.
Councilmember Moore said she would prefer an updated EIR. She asked several questions and stated her opinion that
the site description was not accurate.
Property owner answered the questions, supporting the documentation.
Councilmember Moore said she would prefer more testing.
Outside panelist: Nick Pappani, from Raney Planning, stated that the MND would be appropriate even with additional
soil sampling.
Commissioner. Scharf: His preference to do additional borings now, before any more work was done, the reverse order
from normal practice.
Councilmember Moore: Says that doing borings now would speed up the process.
2
Original Motion: MND is appropriate, with direction to do additional soil testing be done (peer review and property
owner) and any additional work done before going to Planning Commission.
Big discussion about samples all over the property or following the written guidance. Commissioner Scharf and
Councilmember Moore stated something to the effect that they do not trust any “judgement‐driven” choice of sites.
Substitute motion by Councilmember Moore that this item be continued pending soil testing. It was seconded.
Back and forth discussion until the original motion prevailed.
The ERC Vice Chair and Director of Public Works, Mett Morley supports the original motion over the substitute.
Director of Community Development Benjamin supports the original motion over the substitute.
Assistant City Manager Diane Thompson would support original motion.
Final vote on original motion: Morley‐yes, Fu‐yes, Thompson‐yes; Scharf no; Moore no
Given the opinions that Commissioner Scharf and Councilmember Moore do not trust experts in the field, or the
processes by which environmental decisions are made by other agencies, I think it is important to keep more people in
the decision‐making loop, especially experienced Staff.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham, a 34 year resident and Housing Commissioner (self only)