RES 06035 - Laserfiche WebLink

organizations. In addition, comments on the DEIR were provided in the course of the Planning Commission public hearing on the DEIR, February 22, 2006, at which Commis- sioners and members ofthe public spoke. I n the two chapters that follow - Comment Summaries and Responses (Chapter 2) and Texts of Communications Provided in Response to the DEIR (Chapter 3) - the written communications are labeled beginning with "A" for the Planning Commission minutes of February 22 and "B" through "J" for the others. Specific comments to which responses have been provided in Chapter 2 are numbered in order within the communications; for example, AS, B2, C4, etc. Each comment number is noted in the margins of the Chapter 3 communication from which it has been excerpted, adjacent to the text from which the comment was drawn. Two communications did not contain substantive comments on the DEIR. Communication F from the Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, reports the receipt of the DEIR by that office and establishes the dates of the opening and closing of the public review period for State agencies reviewing the document. Communica- tion I from the California Highway Patrol reports that the document was reviewed by that agency and that the agency finds that the project would have no significant impacts on Highway Patrol operations. Communication B from the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) consists of three letters to the City of Pleasanton: Nap Letter September 21, 2005 DEIR Communication 1 March 22, 2006 DEIR Communication 2 April 11, 2006 CMA'5 response to the Notice of Preparation (NaP) (3 pp.). CMA's comments on the DEIR (2 pp.). These comments describe the purpose of the Land Use Analysis Program of the Congestion Management Program (CM P) as the identification of the impacts of projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips over and above existing con- ditions on Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways. The impact analysis required under the CMP would typically be conducted using the Alameda Countywide Model because the Countywide model normally is more "conservative" in its impact findings. Pleasanton's impact analysis used the City's model without documenting why the County model was not used. CMA's follow-up letter on the DEIR (1 p.). This letter states that the DEIR project is exempt from the CMP's Land Use Analysis Program because it would not (based on information provided by the City to the CMA subsequent to the CMA comment letter) generate 100 or more PM peak hour trips over existing or baseline conditions. This letter resolves the issues raised in the CMA's previous communications. 2