My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 96087
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
RES 96087
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2012 8:31:58 AM
Creation date
2/24/1999 6:46:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/6/1996
DOCUMENT NO
RES 96087
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> EXHIBIT 2 <br />Responses to Communication: <br />Letter from Wilson F. Wendt, Miller Starr & Regalia, Attorneys-at-Law <br />(Reoresentin2 Vineyard Prooertv Owners ~iation) <br />The following are responses to the letter of May 28, 1996, from Mr. Wendt to Mayor Tarver <br />and the Pleasanton City Council. The response numbers are keyed to the six substantive <br />paragraphs of the letter. <br />1. Comment: (a) The Public Resources Code ~2109l(d) requires the lead agency to <br /> respond to all comments ~ived on a DEIR in writing. <br /> (b) CEQA Guidelines ~IS088(b) require that the written responses <br /> provide a "good faith reasoned analysis in response" to the "major <br /> environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at <br /> variance with the recommendations and objects [sic] raised in the <br /> commentS. " <br /> Response: (a) The FEIR contains written responses to all comments that <br /> addressed the DEIR. <br /> (b) The principal points raised by the commenter's letter are addressed <br /> below. There is only one topic on which the positions of the lead <br /> agency and the commenter are at variance and on which the <br /> commenter alleges that the FEIR response does not constitute an <br /> analysis consistent with CEQA Guidelines ~1S088(b): the issue of <br /> the change in the annual growth cap. This topic is addressed <br /> under Comment 6 below. <br />2. Comment: (a) The FEIR does not respond to issues raised in the following <br /> letters: <br /> March 20, 1996, from the State Department of Housing and <br /> Community Development <br /> March 21, 1996. from Alameda County Planning Department <br /> [reference to May 22 is in error] <br /> March 22,1996, from the Greenbelt Alliance <br /> (b) The lack of such responses constitute "significant deficiencies <br /> which we believe render the document legally inadequate." <br /> Response: (a) The FEIR contains written response to all comments that addressed <br /> the DER. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.