My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
090407
>
17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2007 11:39:17 AM
Creation date
8/30/2007 4:49:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/4/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
• Preserves viable habitat areas including wildlife corridors in the open space area. <br />The Oak Grove EIR Process <br />A complete discussion of the Oak Grove Final Environmental Impact Report is covered <br />in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Responses to Comments in <br />the June 13th Planning Commission staff report. That staff report also includes astep- <br />by-step description of the EIR's review process (pp, 11- 13). <br />The following discussion further develops the analysis of the June 27th Planning <br />Commission staff report. It replies to the Planning Commission's comments and public <br />comments on the Final EIR's completeness in conformance to the California <br />Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its relationship to the PUD development plan <br />review. <br />EIR Process <br />The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the Final EIR was not adequate in <br />light of the testimony that the Planning Commission heard at the EIR's public scoping <br />session and the Commission's public hearings on the Draft EIR and then on the Final <br />EIR. Staff believes that the project has undergone an extensive evaluation process. <br />The application was submitted to the City in 2003 and, since that time, has undergone a <br />complete environmental review process. <br />On February 8, 2005 a joint City Council/Planning Commission EIR scoping session <br />was held, at which time comments were noted for inclusion in the Draft EIR. On <br />June 30, 2006 the Draft EIR was reviewed by the Planning Commission, providing a <br />forum for both the Planning Commissioners and the residents in the City of Pleasanton <br />to provide their comments. The public review process was extended to August 23, <br />2006 to allow additional time for public comments and any pending comments from the <br />Responsible Agencies. As part of that comprehensive review process, numerous <br />concerns and comments related to the project were received and responded to. Those <br />responses, along with the Draft EIR, comprise the Oak Grove Final EIR. These <br />documents have been made available in print form, in compact disc from the Planning <br />Department, on the City's website, and at the City of Pleasanton Library. <br />There has been comment that the project has proceeded without adequate time for the <br />public to fully understand the impacts this project will have on the community, that the <br />analysis is inadequate, that City staff has not evaluated the EIR documents, that the <br />process has not been an open one, that the City has ignored its responsibility to protect <br />neighborhoods because of the gift of open space, and that all members of the public <br />have not been a part of the process in the consideration of the project. <br />The process has entailed four years of a transparent review process. During that time, <br />anyone interested in the project has been able to contact the City and has been <br />provided any materials that had been submitted in relation to the project at the time. All <br />issues have been addressed informally, as questions were raised, and formally, as part <br />of the Final EIR. Therefore, staff believes that the EIR process for Oak Grove was <br />proper. <br />Page 11 of 27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.