PC-2026-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-53 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 Anonymous (ANONYMOUS) Response to ANONYMOUS-1 This comment provides general introductory statements and does not raise any specific issues with respect to the proposed project or the Draft EIR. 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, including conditions of approval. Cumulative impacts for each environmental resource topic were evaluated at the end of each environmental topic section of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR determined that cumulative impacts resulting from development of the proposed project would be less than significant with the exception of transportation impacts related to VMT, which would be significant and unavoidable. However, as stated in Draft EIR Section 3.14, Transportation, on page 3.14-13, the proposed project would include VMT-reducing strategies such as reducing off-street parking spaces and enhancing multimodal infrastructure. Moreover, this impact determination is consistent with the conclusions of the City’s Housing Element Update EIR. The comment does not identify any specific cumulative impact with which the commenter disagrees, nor does it propose any mitigation measures. 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 ANONYMOUS-2 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 comment raises general concerns regarding cumulative increases in traffic, noise, and neighborhood activity, but does not identify any specific CEQA threshold that would be exceeded or provide substantial evidence of a significant cumulative impact. As discussed in Draft EIR Sections 3.11, Noise, and 3.14, Transportation, the Draft EIR evaluates existing conditions, including background traffic and infrastructure-related noise, and analyzes both project-level and cumulative impacts using adopted significance criteria. The analysis concludes that cumulative traffic and noise impacts would not be significant, and the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. The comment does not provide new or substantial evidence requiring revision of the Draft EIR’s conclusions. However, a Transportation Impact Study was prepared for the proposed project and included as Appendix H (erroneously labeled ‘Noise Supporting Information;’ refer to Section 5, Errata, of this document) of the Draft EIR. While not required under CEQA, this report included an Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Appendix H includes count sheets conducted to collect existing peak-hour traffic volumes. As stated on page 7 in Appendix H of the Draft EIR, motor vehicle traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project were found to be less than significant based on the City’s LOS standards. The anticipated proposed project traffic would result in roughly a 3 percent increase in peak-hour traffic on Dublin Canyon Road at the Canyon Meadows Drive intersection, which would not significantly affect existing conditions. All study intersections were found to operate at an acceptable LOS under all study scenarios, with and without the proposed project, and traffic conditions resulting