RES 96087 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Ben Tarver and Members of the City Council May 28, 1996 Page 3 Response Lll to the Hiller, starr & Regalia letter in the Response to Comments document also appears to suggest that the environmental review of at least one major project proposed 5 in the Draft General Plan, the realignment of Vineyard Avenue, should be deferred until a later stage. This is clearly contrary to state law. CEQA requires that the environmental review of a project be conducted at the earliest stage and prOhibits the adoption of future studies in lieu of adequate mitigation. (Bozuna v. Local Aaencv Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, see also, Sundtrom v. Countv of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296) The proposed Vineyard Avenue realignment would run along an arroyo and could potentially cause significant environmental damage to this sensitive habitat. Either the EIR text or, at a minimum the Response to Comments, should provide some discussion regarding the potential environmental consequences of this major infrastructure project. Finally, response L15 to the Miller, starr & Regalia letter, attempts to minimize the comment instead of providing an adequate response. The comment suggested that the EIR should analyze the effects that a 50% reduction in the annual growth cap 6 could have on the environment of the City of Pleasanton and surrounding jurisdictions. The author of the Response to Comments document makes four irrelevant statements in response; 1) the land use element allows up to 8,100 new housing units, 2) the growth rate cap controls only the timing and not the total final amount of growth, 3) the growth cap is not really a growth cap because the City Council is not required to allow any new units, and 4) the growth rate cap won't actually take effect until approximately 1999 because of previously awarded allotments. None of these statements addresses the commenter's concern. That concern is basically, that a reduction in the City Council's discretion (at any point during the life of the General Plan) to approve new housing will cause environmental impacts in surrounding jurisdictions because units which would. otherwise be supplied in Pleasanton will likely be demanded in those surrounding jurisdictions. For the reasons stated above, we strongly suggest that it would be improper for the City Council to act upon any recommendation regarding the General Plan Update until there is a legally adequate Response to Comments document which fully VlNE\34117 101312.1