RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

Master Responses City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project &inal EIR 2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/released/032626 DV/21480016 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx responses for inclusion in the Final EIR. (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a), 15132). The written responses must describe the disposition of any “significant environmental issues” raised by commenters. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). However, CEQA does not require that a lead agency respond to every comment received on an EIR, but only comments raising significant environmental issues. (PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a), (c), 15132(d), 15204(a)). The CEQA Guidelines specify that comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). “Economic or social effects of a project” in and of themselves “shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15131(a)). Economic and social effects that are not related to physical impacts shall not be evaluated in an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15604(e), 15131(a), 15131(b)). Accordingly, issues related to revenue loss, infrastructure cost, budget deficits, parking and similar economic and/or social concerns are appropriately not addressed in this environmental document. Additionally, as identified in the “Thresholds of Significance” section within each topical section (Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare through Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant), the City as Lead Agency elected to analyze the proposed project against the significance thresholds in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether the proposed project would have significant environmental impacts to that specific environmental topical area, which is the City’s standard practice for EIRs. Several comments identify concerns that could be generally characterized as relating to a specific topical section, but these comments neither relate nor apply to any of the thresholds utilized by the Lead Agency and detailed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, nor otherwise specifically relate to an adverse physical impact of the project on the environment. With respect to comments concerning the format, style or length of the Draft EIR, CEQA does not mandate page limits or require environmental documents to be reduced in length based on preference. The suggestions in Guidelines Section 15141 are aspirational–not mandatory. Importantly, CEQA requires that environmental documents be sufficiently detailed to enable informed decision-making and meaningful public participation, while disclosing and analyzing the environmental issues raised by the project. (PRC §§ 21061, 21080.3; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(b), 15151). CEQA further requires that documents be prepared with sufficient detail to respond to the full range of environmental issues and viewpoints presented. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(b), 15144). Accordingly, the Draft EIR has been organized to enhance readability and public access, including the use of headings, summaries, and clear topic separation, consistent with CEQA’s directive that environmental documents be understandable. (CEQA Guidelines § 15140). The fact that the document addresses issues in detail does not render it legally deficient; to the contrary, providing a thorough explanation of the relevant considerations supports informed public review and a robust administrative record.