PC-2026-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-45 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 Individuals Andrew Gelb (A.GELB 1) Response to A.GELB 1-1 This comment is noted and 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 1-2 As disclosed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, the analysis identifies scenic vistas based on City of Pleasanton General Plan policies, designated scenic resources, scenic highways, and publicly accessible viewpoints. Because the City does not formally identify any scenic vistas, for purposes of the Draft EIR, a significant impact would occur if project operation would result in substantial adverse effects on the view of a scenic resource/route as defined by the General Plan or General Plan EIR. The General Plan does not designate the views identified by the commenter as protected scenic vistas, nor are they associated with a designated scenic highway, officially recognized viewpoint, or other adopted scenic resource. The proposed project is not expected to significantly block surrounding scenic resources or ridgelines for adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial impact on a scenic vista, and impacts would be considered less than significant. Accordingly, while the views may be subjectively valued by individual observers, they do not meet the City’s threshold for a CEQA scenic vista impact. Visual simulations comparing existing conditions to the views of the proposed project development were included in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description at pages 3-29 through 3-31 and in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare at pages 3.1-9 through 3.1-13. These visual simulation locations were selected by City staff based on possible views that could be altered by the proposed development and were utilized for analysis of aesthetic impacts related to the proposed project. It is important to note that existing views of hillsides surrounding the project site are currently obstructed from several of the viewpoints by existing vegetation and residential development. While the proposed project would be visible from certain existing viewpoints, it would provide landscaping and trees that would enhance views of the project site and promote harmony with the existing visual landscape. Furthermore, development would be located within a lower topographic portion of the project site, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. Moreover, the proposed project would not be visible from the viewpoint along Crosby Drive at the foot of the surrounding hills. No development of housing structures would occur on slopes of 25 percent or greater, preserving existing ridgelines, consistent with the City’s General Plan Program 20.3, which discourages grading on such slopes. In addition, Draft EIR page 3.1-6 notes that a majority of the site would be proposed for open space dedication, so interruptions to views would be intermittent as portions of the site that are proposed for open space dedication would continue to provide visual corridors to surrounding scenic resources. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to significantly block views toward surrounding scenic resources or ridgelines, nor would it substantially impact publicly accessible views in the project area. 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