RES 96087 - Laserfiche WebLink

City_arid County of San Francisco: Office of City Attorney Louise H. Renne, City A1tqrney Mr. Wayne Rasmussen June 13, 1996 Principal Planner 200 Old Bernal Avenue P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 (Hand delivered at City Council meeting on June 13, 1996.) Re: Comments on Draft Responses to Comments on the Draft Em. For Pleasanton General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Rasmussen: I have reviewed the responses to comments that the San Francisco Water Depanment (SFWD) submitted on the Draft EIR for the General Plan in a letter dated March 21, 1996. I . request that you carefully consider the following points before the City Council approves the Fmal EIR. because the responses do not meet the standards imposed under the California Environmental Quality Act. The answer to the first comment in SFWD's letter is not responsive. You have not 1, 2 explained why the DEIR fails to discuss consistency between the County's General Plan and the proposed Plea.santon Plan, notwithstanding that nearly fifty square miles of territory covered by Pleasanton's Plan is in the County's jurisdiction. The point of the comment is that the proposal to 3 reduce the current annual limit on building permits for housing construction by more than fifty percent is, under state law, "presumed to have an impact on the supply of residential units available in an area which includes territory outside the jurisdiction of the city." (Evid. Code Sec. 669.5.) Your response, that" limits already exist and are not newly-proposed under the draft. General Plan" ignores the fact that there is a new proposal to impose additiona1limitations"and the environmental implications of that policy change on regional housing needs should be disclosed in the DEnt. ..' The response also states that under the proposed General Plan amendment the reduction 4 in the number of housing units that could be approved b ,emore theoretical than practical." That is not an accurate statement; the limit as proposed is absolute, and the regional housing supply could be correspo~dingly reduced in any given year as a direct result of that prohibition. In addition, other general. plan amendments when read together will have the real effect of reducing and deferring housing construction in Pleasanton. Given the significant regional transportation 5 and air quality impacts associated with urban sprawl in the region. the EIR. might, for example, have analyzed where the housing demand that would not be accommodated in Pleasanton would be diverted to instead. Your response fails to explain why such analysis is not necessary. The recent amendment to the County General Plan for the area carefuUy considered 6 (416) 554-3SOC Fox Plaza, 13$0 M3J1cet Street, SIXth Floor San Francisco 94102.5408