RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

Master Responses City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR 2-4 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 those impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments” and provide data, references, or other evidence to support their comments (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)). CEQA requires that the Final EIR address comments submitted during the public comment period that raise significant environmental issues on the adequacy of the Draft EIR (PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). CEQA considerations are limited to significant issues as these relate to potential adverse physical impacts of the proposed project on the environment. General comments and comments that consist merely of speculation or unsupported criticism may be rejected or answered with only a general response. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204, in part states: xx In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and the ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. . . . [R]eviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of [specified] factors. . . . CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). x Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)). Pursuant to CEQA, personal opinions expressing general support for, or opposition to, the proposed project are noted and will be included within the administrative record for the proposed project for consideration by the City, but do not require a specific written response if they do not relate to a significant environmental issue that is addressed within the Draft EIR and/or otherwise within the purview of CEQA. Likewise, opinions about the general desirability, merits, and/or purely economic, social, or political considerations of the proposed project are not within the purview of CEQA and do not require a specific written response in this Final EIR. See also Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final EIR, above. In cases where the commenter provides an opinion and/or generalized concerns about the merits of the proposed project and/or the scope and nature of the environmental review but does not identify any particular issue concerning the sufficiency of the Draft EIR, the City notes the opinion in this Final EIR for informational purposes and consideration by the decision-makers as part of the public hearing process on the merits of the proposed project. Where a commenter offers unsubstantiated assertions about an environmental issue or the adequacy of the Draft EIR, the City notes the assertion in this Final EIR for informational purposes