RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-123 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Ted Vinson (T.VINSON 1) Response to T.VINSON 1-1 Please refer to Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in Final EIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. This Master Response provides an explanation of the scope of CEQA. The Draft EIR for the proposed project includes an analysis of all environmental topic areas, as required under CEQA. This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The comment did not provide new, substantial evidence with respect to the disposition of significant environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. Response to T.VINSON 1-2 Please refer to the Response to ANONYMOUS-2 above for an explanation of VMT compared to LOS as required under CEQA. As noted on page 1 of Appendix H, Transportation Impact Study, of the Draft EIR, the transportation analysis for the proposed project studied the potential adverse effects related to traffic per the standards and methodologies set forth in the City’s significance criteria established in the General Plan, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, and other transportation studies. Study intersections for the proposed project were selected in consultation with City staff and according to the City’s criteria. Page 24 of Appendix H states that all of the study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak-hours. Further, on page 7, the Transportation Impact Study found that all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS with implementation of the proposed project. The data collection and intersection analyses cited by the commenter provide the evidentiary basis for the Draft EIR’s finding that the project would not substantially worsen traffic conditions on Dublin Canyon Road or at nearby intersections. Accordingly, the transportation analysis was necessary to comply with CEQA, even though it ultimately demonstrates that the project’s contribution to traffic congestion would be minimal. The Draft EIR therefore adequately evaluates transportation impacts and is not deficient for including the analyses referenced in the comment. Response to T.VINSON 1-3 Page 9 of Appendix H states that the proposed project would install a traffic signal at the intersection of Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadows Drive, which is reflected in the analysis of all “Plus Project” scenarios. A traffic signal was considered in development with the developer, City staff, and members of the public. Appendix H goes on to state that installation of a traffic signal at this intersection would operate at LOS A for all “plus Project” conditions on pages 29, 36, and 40. As described on page 12 in Appendix H, LOS A represents a very low control delay where many vehicles do not stop at all. Therefore, installation of the traffic signal on Dublin Canyon Road would not result in a significant impact related to transportation. This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The comment did not provide new, substantial evidence with respect to the disposition of significant environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.