RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Master Responses FirstCarbon Solutions 2-3 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 Accordingly, the comment regarding document length does not identify a violation of CEQA, nor does it demonstrate that the document fails to meet CEQA’s informational or analytical requirements. No changes to the document are required in response to this comment. For the reasons explained above, the Final EIR will not provide further responses to comments on Non-CEQA Issues. However, as previously indicated, each comment will be included in the administrative record on the proposed project and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration as part of the public hearing process on the proposed project. In this regard, the City will review, evaluate, and consider, as determined appropriate, all comments received as part of the decision-making process. See also Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR. No changes are warranted, and no further response is required. Master Response 2—General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR Summary of Relevant Comments Several commenters expressed general opposition to the merits of the proposed project but did not raise any significant environmental issues related to the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis; and/or objected generally regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis but did not provide a specific basis to support the asserted inadequacy. The City reviewed all such general comments and prepared this Master Response to address them accordingly. Comments that were more specific in nature and provided supporting information are addressed in the individual, unique responses. The general comments addressed in this Master Response fall into one of several categories: xx The comment broadly identified environmental topics and/or requested additional evaluation but did not provide supporting information as to why additional evaluation would be required; x The comment identified general concerns or questions related to broad topical areas, but did not provide any specifics related to the project or the analysis in the Draft EIR; x The comment asked for additional studies, mitigation, or alternatives without explanation, supporting information, or rationale; x The comment presented generalized claims challenging the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR which were not supported by data or references offering facts; or x The comment stated an opinion, speculation, or conclusion regarding the proposed project but did not (1) provide any rationale, or (2) raise any issues related to the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis. The foregoing types of comments received in response to the Draft EIR are referred to herein collectively as “general opposition” and are the focus of this Master Response. Response As also discussed in Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final EIR, above, comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and the adequacy of measures designed to avoid or mitigate