Reso 2016-117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5. Comments and Responses This chapter includes a reproduction of, and responses to, each comment letter on the Draft EIR received during the public review period. Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix I, along with annotations that identify each individual comment number. Responses to individual comments are provided in this chapter alongside the text of each corresponding comment. Letters follow the same order as listed in Section 4.1 of this Final EIR and are categorized by: ■ Agencies and Service Providers • Organizations and Individuals Letters are arranged by category and then by date received. Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to another numbered comment and response. Where a response requires revisions to the Draft EIR, these revisions are shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. Responses to individual comments are presented in Table 5-1. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Final EIR to provide written responses to comments received on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR during the public review period. The City received several such letters from agencies and the general public, as noted above. However, some of the public comments related to the merits of the proposed San Leandro 2035 General Plan and Zoning Code amendments, as opposed to comments on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. CEQA does not require the Final EIR to respond to comments on the merits of the proposed project; however, in light of the numerous comments on the merits, the City has prepared the following master response to explain the basis for not preparing detailed responses on these non-CEQA comments. MASTER RESPONSE: COMMENTS RELATED TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT During the review period for the Draft EIR, members of the public submitted several comments that related to the details of the proposed San Leandro 2035 General Plan and Zoning Code amendments (together referred to as the "proposed project"), conveyed the commenter's opinion on the proposed project, or addressed the relative consequences or benefits of the proposed project (referred to here as "merits of the proposed Plan"), rather than the adequacy of the Draft EIR or the environmental issues, impacts, and mitigation measures addressed in the Draft EIR. For example, the City received a number of comments from concerned citizens, both in written comments and oral testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, that proposed zoning changes would cause increased traffic; however, these comments did not cite specific issues with the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR. Similarly, PLACEWORKS 5-1