RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-75 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 Robert Devany 2 (R.DEVANY 2) Response to R.DEVANY 2-1 Please refer to the Response to R.DEVANY 3 in Section 4, Responses to Public Meeting Verbal Comments, in this document for a discussion of the public comments received from Robert Devany during the December 10, 2025, City Planning Commission Meeting. 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 2-2 Draft EIR Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant, Section 4.2.1, Agriculture Resources and Forestry Resources, page 4-2, states the proposed project would continue to provide access to APN 941-2600-1-3, located immediately west of the project site boundary, through an access easement. This easement would allow existing agricultural (grazing) activities to continue on the adjacent parcel upon project implementation. Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-20 describes the existing land uses surrounding the project site, which includes mention of grazing land to the west. As noted at the beginning of Chapter 2, on page 2-1, the Project Description is intended to provide an overview of the project location and setting, project objectives, and proposed project details, characteristics, and phasing, consistent with CEQA requirements. As such, no land use compatibility analysis is included in this section. Furthermore, Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-6 is a project-level base topographic survey prepared to illustrate proposed development features within the site plan. The exhibit is not intended to serve as a comprehensive depiction of all informal or private access routes beyond the scope of project construction and operation. To the extent the dirt road extends beyond what is depicted on Exhibit 2-6, that issue does not affect the environmental analysis of the proposed project. The Draft EIR does not conclude, and does not rely on any conclusion, that the dirt road does not exist or that it lacks historical use. Rather, CEQA requires the Draft EIR to analyze whether the proposed project would result in new or substantially worsened environmental impacts, including impacts related to agricultural operations, transportation, access, or circulation. Please refer to the Response to R.DEVANY 1-1 for a discussion of the existing dirt road on the project site and access to APN 941-2600-1-3 after proposed project development. 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 2-3 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