RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-47 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 (MM) GEO-1, ensuring that any potential geotechnical hazards would be reduced to less than significant. As stated in Draft EIR Section 3.4, Biological Resources, page 3.3-44, the proposed project would preserve 147 of the 208 trees surveyed in the project area. Moreover, MM BIO-5 would include a Tree Preservation Plan to protect preserved trees during construction activities, including grading. Please refer to the Response to A.GELB-3 for a discussion of the preservation of open space on the project site and hillside grading regulations and refer to the Response to A.GELB-2 for a discussion of the proposed project’s less than significant impacts related to viewsheds. 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 A.GELB 1-5 The proposed project would develop 28 new detached single-family homes, consistent with City design standards. The number of homes was reduced from an originally proposed total of 31, in part as a result of evaluation of proposed grading in light of Measure PP. Aesthetic impacts related to the proposed project were evaluated in Draft EIR Section 3.1; Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, pages 3.1-6 through 3.1-18. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to aesthetics with implementation of MM AES-4a, which requires adherence to the City’s design review process and standards by minimizing reflective materials and building colors on the exterior of buildings. Please also refer to the Response to A.GELB-2 for a discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to viewsheds. 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 A.GELB 1-6 As discussed on page 3.1-16 in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be subject to the City’s design review process. Specifically, under MM AES-4a, the proposed project would be required to minimize glare through restriction of the color of exterior buildings and structure materials, as well as restriction of the use of reflective glass. Additionally, please refer to the Response to A.GELB-4 for a discussion of the Tree Preservation Plan that would be implemented for the proposed project. Further, as noted on page 10 in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would require a design-level geotechnical review to investigate the optimal siting and specifications for the proposed retaining wall. MM GEO-1 on page 3.6-27 of the Draft EIR requires the proposed project to implement the engineering recommendations provided by the design-level geotechnical review. Draft EIR Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, page 3.15-17 notes that the proposed project would be served by existing underground utility lines adjacent to the project site in Dublin Canyon Road.