RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR 3-68 FirstCarbon Solutions 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 was to provide an additional opportunity for members of the public to provide oral comments and ask questions, not to limit or replace the opportunity to submit written comments. Written comments received by the close of the public review period are considered equally, regardless of whether they are submitted before or after a public hearing. Accordingly, the timing of the public hearing did not limit the public’s opportunity to review the Draft EIR or to provide comments, and the City’s review process complies with CEQA requirements. Please refer to Section 4, Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments, of this document for a transcript of the meeting and for written responses to all public speakers. Moreover, the City Council hearing date for the proposed project is scheduled on May 19, 2026. Members of the public would be able to provide comment at this meeting as well. 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 R.DEVANY 1-5 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, a Draft EIR must be circulated for a minimum public review period of 45 days. The review period began on November 11, 2025, and was extended 15 days beyond the statutory 45-day period from January 5th, 2026, to January 20th, 2026. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, “[t]he public review period for a Draft EIR shall not be less than 30 days nor should it be longer than 60 days except under unusual circumstances.” The Draft EIR was circulated for a 60-day public review period, and there is no evidence of unusual circumstances that would justify a departure from the standard requirements set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. An analysis of land use impacts related to the proposed project for each required CEQA threshold was provided in Draft EIR Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, pages 3.10-10 through 3.10-13. With approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan and impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. Further, evaluation of wildfire impacts for each required CEQA threshold was provided in Draft EIR Section 3.16, Wildfire, pages 3.16-11 through 3.16-16. With implementation of MM GEO-1 to reduce post-fire slope instability, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to wildfire. 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 R.DEVANY 1-6 Notice of Preparation comments and comments received at the public scoping meeting for the proposed project are summarized in Table 1-1, NOP Comment Letters, in Section 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR. Since the NOP comment scoping period, changes have been made to the Draft EIR, including the preparation of visual simulation exhibits for the Draft EIR, which are available in Draft EIR Section 3.1; Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, pages 3.1-9 through 3.1-13. Additionally, the construction of a traffic signal, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks on Dublin Canyon Road were included as part of the proposed project. Please see the Response to R.DEVANY 1-1 for a discussion of adjoining parcel access. This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the