RES 96087 - Laserfiche WebLink

MILLER 0111: 1C.\llI:a Pl-...z.... EXHIBIT 1 STARR SVITI: 1600. REGALIA & 0",1:1.""0, c.u.lrG...U. 94612 WAl.IIVT Caul: OrrlCI: ... '.0'1:11101161- F"csllllU (510) 465 -1202 F"CSIIIII.I: (510) 933-4126 L"W cO.'O....TIOII TaU'801l1: (510) 465-3800 TaU.IIOIII: (510) 935-9400 WILlON r. WKNDT May 28", 1996 Mayor Ben Tarver and Members of the city council city of Pleasanton P. o. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Re: Consideration of Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Honorable Mayor Tarver and Members of the City council: We'have carefully reviewed the Final Environmental 1 Impact Report for the Draft City of Pleasanton General Plan project and we are concerned that the document is legally inadequate for a number of reasons. Public Resources Code section 21091(d) requires the lead agency to respond to all comments received on a Draft EIR in writing. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines section 15088(b) requires that the lead agency's written responses must provide a "good faith reasoned analysis in response" to the "major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with the recommendations and objects raised in the comments." The Response to Comments section of the EIR contains some significant deficiencies which we believe render the document legally..inadequate. Most significantly, there are no 2 responses to the issues raised in the letter of March 20, 1996 from the California Department of Housing and Comm~nity Development ("RCD")I, nor are there any responses to issues raised in letter. of May, 22 1996 from the Alameda county Planning Department or the March 22, 1996 letter from the Greenbelt Alliance. . 1 The HCD comment letter itself was excluded from the Response to Comments document even though other comment letters for which the EIR author felt no need to respond were included. V1H1!\34al7 101312.1