Pleasanton City Council
May 19, 2026

5/11/2026
1 FY 2026/27 Mid-Term Budget Update
City Council Meeting
May 19, 2026
Agenda
Economic Outlook Budget Update 10-Year Forecast Update 2 1 2

5/11/2026
2 Economic Outlook
• The U.S. economic outlook is clouded by a high
degree of uncertainty
• Inflation remains elevated
• Softening labor market and rising recession risk are
undermining business and consumer confidence
3 Budget Overview
• Economic uncertainty is weighing on the City's two top revenue sources • Expenditure adjustments prioritize operational needs and efficiency, spanning across city funds
• Capital adjustments reflect updated costs, funding availability, and project timelines 4
3 4

5/11/2026
3 Alignment with Council Priorities
Protecting core services Investing in community
infrastructure
Advancing economic
development initiatives 5 Citywide Operating Budget • $8.2M increase in expenditures primarily attributable to Enterprise and Internal Service Funds
6 Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Budget Adjustments Budget
Expenditures
General Fund $160,843,080 $172,545 $161,015,625
Internal Service Funds 21,451,347 1,383,000 22,834,347 Enterprise Funds 70,118,886 5,719,844 75,838,730 Special Revenue Funds 4,162,883 931,123 5,094,006 Debt Service Funds 1,115,250 - 1,115,250 Private-purpose Trust Fund 7,700 - 7,700 Total Expenditures $257,699,147 $8,206,512 $265,905,659 FY 2027
5 6

5/11/2026
4 Budget Highlights – General Fund
• Lower revenue projection and higher expenditure projection • Increased contribution from Capital Reserve to fund aging fire vehicle • Deploy Strategic Implementation Reserve to fund Council priority projects • Out-year operating deficits remain
7 General Fund Overview
• The budget reflects Council's commitment to economic vitality, with funds directed toward priority projects
• A balanced budget achieved through $6.0M in one-time funding draws from the Capital Reserve, Strategic Plan Implementation Reserve, Pension Trust Funds, and Retiree Medical Trust Funds
8 Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Budget Adjustments Budget
Revenues $165,761,951 ($395,349) $165,366,602
Net Transfers (6,447,000) 50,000 (6,397,000) Use of Program Reserves / Trust 2,000,000 300,000 2,300,000 Expenditures (160,843,080) (172,545) (161,015,625) Net Surplus/(Deficit) $471,871 ($217,894) $253,977 FY 2027
7 8

5/11/2026
5 General Fund Revenue Budget
9 General Fund Expenditure Budget
10 9
10

5/11/2026
6 General Fund - Major Adjustments
• Negative/red numbers represent a decrease in revenue or expenditure 11 Recommended
Description Adjustment
Revenues
• Property Tax -$1.9M • Sales Tax -$0.9M • Business License Tax $0.5M • Development Services Fees (one-time revenue) $0.6M • Recreation Fees $0.5M
• Other Revenues $0.7M
Expenditures
• Personnel Costs -$0.7M
• Transportation & Training $0.3M
• Materials, Supplies & Services $0.4M
General Fund - Major Adjustments (Cont’d) • Negative/red numbers represent a decrease in revenue or expenditure 12 Recommended
Description Adjustment
Transfers In/Use of Reserves
• Capital Reserve – contribution to help balance the GF budget $0.5M $0.3M
• Strategic Implementation Reserve – fund Downtown Specific Plan Update and Fiber Master Plan
Transfers Out
$0.5M
• Fund fire engine acquisition in the Fire Apparatus Replacement Fund
11 12

5/11/2026
7 General Fund - Projected Fund Balance
• Reserve target: 20%
• Reserve is projected at 21.8% of operating expenditures 13 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2027
General Fund Projected Ending Recommendeded Projected Ending Fund Balance Fund Balance Adjustments Fund Balance
Unrestricted General Fund Reserve $34,485,260 $553,977 $35,039,237 COVID Response & Recovery - - - Strategic Plan Implementation Reserve 319,428 (300,000) 19,428 Emergency Reserve 500,000 - 500,000 Restricted General Fund Reserve 21,366,377 - 21,366,377 Total $56,671,065 $253,977 $56,925,042 Anticipated Funding Needs
• $5.3M for two aging fire engines and a ladder truck
• $1.2M in additional assessment for LPFD from CJPRMA for general liability insurance coverage, with half owed by Pleasanton Recent information from the insurance pool suggests the assessment will likely increase
The operating budget adopted by the Council each fiscal year does not address all of the City’s operating needs
14 13
14

5/11/2026
8 General Fund Financial Forecast Update
• Property tax is higher, and sales tax is lower compared to the February 2026 mid-year update
• General liability insurance costs were updated based on the latest information
• Structural deficits persist, with economic downturns likely to deepen the fiscal challenges
• The $44.0 million annual infrastructure funding gap identified in the Asset Management Plan remains unaddressed in the forecast 15 Baseline Scenario – Projected Surplus/Deficit 16 Note: FY23 available resources were retained in the General Fund to meet the City's 20.0% reserve target. 16.7% is the minimum reserve recommended by the GFOA.
15 16

5/11/2026
9 Budget Highlights – Enterprise Funds
• Water Fund: Higher revenues, expenses, and capital contributions • Sewer Fund: Higher revenues and expenses, lower capital contributions • Reserve target: 35%
• Water Fund reserve is projected at 38.0%
• Sewer Fund reserve is projected at 34.3%
17 Enterprise Funds - Major Adjustments
18 Recommended
Fund Description Adjustment
Water • Water Service Charge $7.4M • Zone 7 water purchase and other operating costs $4.5M • Contribution to the capital fund $0.9M
Sewer • Sewer Service Charge $1.1M
• DSRSD fees and other operating costs $0.6M
• Contribution to the capital fund -$1.0M
• Negative/red numbers represent a decrease in revenue or expenditure 17 18

5/11/2026
10 Budget Highlights – Other Funds
• Special Revenue Funds
• Adjustments based on projected program activities
• Internal Service Funds
• Funding allocated for aging fire engine replacement • General liability insurance-related costs reduced 19 Other Funds - Major Adjustments
20 Recommended
Funds Description Adjustment
$0.4M
• Miscellaneous Donations Fund:

Special Revenue donations/expenditure
$0.2M
• Opioid Settlement Funds: funding for one
Alternative Resource Unit (ARU) clinician
$0.5M
• Fire Apparatus Replacement: contribution
Internal Service from the General Fund
$1.6M
• Fire Apparatus Replacement: fire engine
replacement
-$1.3M
• General Liability Insurance Fund:
revenue/expenditure
• Negative/red numbers represent a decrease in revenue or expenditure 19 20

5/11/2026
11 Capital Budget Overview
• Capital investments support the Council's commitment to safe, reliable infrastructure and quality community services
• The $31M budget includes significant investments for water, sewer, transportation, and street projects
• Adjustments reflect updated cost estimates, funding availability, and revised project timelines
• The five-year water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is updated for debt issuance purposes 21 CIP Expenditure Adjustments
• $1.9M in net reduction to the capital budget in the Sewer, Transportation and Streets, and Water categories
22 FY 2027
Category
Adopted
Budget
Recommended
Adjustments
Mid-Term
Budget
Sewer $1,460,000 $1,150,000 $2,610,000
Transportation & Streets 8,012,500 (1,300,000) 6,712,500 Water 14,820,000 (1,740,000) 13,080,000 Facilities 325,000 - 325,000 Miscellaneous 5,541,000 - 5,541,000 Parks 1,069,000 - 1,069,000 Storm Drain 200,000 - 200,000 Capital Project Total $31,427,500 ($1,890,000) $29,537,500 Other Expenditures 1,282,782 - 1,282,782 Capital & Other Expenditures Total $32,710,282 ($1,890,000) $30,820,282 21 22

5/11/2026
12 CIP Revenue Adjustments
• Preserve cash/reserve in the Sewer Operating Fund for debt issuance purposes • Ensure sufficient funding for water capital projects 23 FY 2027
CIP Revenue Sources
Adopted
Budget
Recommended
Adjustments
Mid-Term
Budget
Sewer CIP Fund 431 - Transfer in from Sewer Operating $1,000,000 ($1,000,000) - $ Water CIP Fund 421 - Transfer in from Water Operating 600,000 1,000,000 1,600,000 Total $1,600,000 - $ $1,600,000
New Projects
• $1.7M in capital investments for three new sewer projects 24 Denker Area Emergency
Sewer Repairs
$1.1M
Force Main Desktop
Analysis and Inspections
$0.4M
Large Diameter Sewer
Pipe Inspection Study
$0.2M
23 24

5/11/2026
13 Existing Projects – Highlights
Additional Funding/Reduction
• $3.6M in net reduction to the capital budget, with significant adjustments presented below
25 FY 2027 CIP Projects
Adopted
Budget Recommended Adjustments
Mid-Term Budget Justification
Annual Sewer Inspection System Improvements $750,000 ($559,000) 191,000 $ Adjust budget due to funding challenges Annual Street Resurfacing & Reconstruction 5,150,000 (1,300,000) 3,850,000 Adjust budget due to funding challenges City Groundwater Supply Project 11,380,000 (11,380,000) - Adjust budget due to delayed construction - joint project with Zone 7 Kilkare and Sunol Fire Flow Improvements Program - 500,000 500,000 Move up project for planning work before design and construction Water Meter and AMI System Replacement 2,100,000 6,810,000 8,910,000 Move up project to address failing infrastructure Water System Emergency Power
Improvements Program 2,130,000 610,000 2,740,000 Adjust budget due to revised scope and cost estimate Total $19,990,000 ($3,799,000) $16,191,000
Looking Ahead
May-December 2026
Citywide Organizational
Assessment
December 2026-April 2027
Community Engagement and FY
2027/29 Budget Development
FY 2026/27 Mid-Year Budget Update
May-June 2027
Proposed Budget
Presentation and Adoption
26 25
26

5/11/2026
14 Recommendation
• Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Fiscal Year 2026/27 MidTerm Update for the operating and capital budget and approve a revised fiveyear water capital improvement program 27 Thank You!
27 28

Item #17

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
May 19, 2026
Community and Economic Development
TITLE: A) ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR); AND
B) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING:
(1) ANNEXATIONS (P18-0078) OF PARCELS TOTALING 130.98 ACRES FROM UNINCORPORATED ALAMEDA COUNTY TO THE CITY OF PLEASANTON; (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (P18-0079) REDESIGNATING
RESIDENTIAL AREAS FROM OPEN SPACE–PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY TO

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE AREAS FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO EITHER OPEN SPACE–PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR OPEN SPACE–PARKS AND RECREATION;
(3) REZONING (P18-0081) PARCELS FROM PRE-ZONED PUD–OS-A&G/OSPH&S/LDR/HOZ (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT–OPEN SPACE– AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING/OPEN SPACE–PUBLIC HEALTH AND

SAFETY/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE) DISTRICTS TO PUD–OS-A&G/OS-PH&S/LDR (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT–OPEN SPACE–AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING/OPEN SPACE– PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICTS; (4) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-130) TO CONSTRUCT 28

DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, DEMOLISH AND RECONSTRUCT TWO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND INSTALL RELATED ONAND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE; AND (5) A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TRACT 8569) TO SUBDIVIDE PARCELS TOTALING 128.5 ACRES INTO EITHER SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS OR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE; AND

C) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PRE-ANNEXATION AND

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to annexfive parcels totaling 130.98 acres into Pleasanton City limits, and develop four of the parcels, located at 10807, 11021 and 11033 Dublin Canyon Road, and the parcel west of 11021 Dublin Canyon Road, hereafter referred to as the 'project site,' with 30 detached, single-family residential lots, including two lots to replace two existing homes in the northeastern portion of the project site, and related on- and off-site improvements. The project would also include dedication of land to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and construction of an EBRPD staging area for public access to Pleasanton Ridge. 10971 Dublin Canyon Rd. is part of the annexation application only and is not included in any other entitlements.

The proposed project is consistent with the project site’s pre-zoning designation of Pre-zonedPage 469 of 908

PUD-OS-A&G/OS-PH&S/LDR/HOZ Districts, which requires conformance with the City’s certified 2023 Housing Element, but not the City’s adopted Objective Design Standards (ODS), as the application was submitted prior to adoption of the ODS.

Following the Planning Commission’s April 22, 2026, recommendation to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approve the project, the environmental documentation, consideration for annexation, General Plan amendments, Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan, Vesting Tentative Map, and Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement are now before the City Council for consideration and approval.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report for Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 1).

2. Introduce an ordinance making the findings and approving the applications of: (1) Annexation (P18-0078) of parcels totaling approximately 130.98 acres; (2) General Plan Amendments (P18-0079) redesignating areas with: (a) new residential from Open Space-Public Health and Safety to Low Density Residential, and (b) private or public open space areas from Low Density Residential to Open Space – Public Health and Safety or Open Space-Parks and Recreation; (3) Rezoning (P18-0081) parcels from Pre-zoned-PUD-OS-A&G/OS-PH&S/LDR/HOZ to PUD-OS-A&G/OS-PH&S/LDR District; (4) a Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan (PUD-130) to construct 28 single-family residential units, demolish and reconstruct two single-family homes, install related on- and off-site modifications and infrastructure, construct a staging area for public access to the Pleasanton Ridge, and dedicate land to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD); and (5) a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TRACT 8569) to subdivide 128.5 acres into: (a) 30 single-family lots and roadway; (b) private open space; and (c) public open space dedicated to the EBRPD (Attachment 2); and

3. Introduce an ordinance approving the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (Attachment 3).

BACKGROUND
The following summarizes the key information related to the proposed project. More detailed background information can be found in the April 22, 2026, Planning Commission agenda report, provided as Attachment 4.

Hillside Development
Measures PP and QQ, adopted by Pleasanton voters in 2008, restrict development on slopes of 25 percent or greater and within 100 vertical feet of ridgelines, with limited exceptions for existing lots of record allowing up to 10 units. These measures are implemented through General Plan policies requiring protection of hillsides and ridgelines. The proposed project is therefore required to comply with these voter-adopted measures and applicable General Plan standards.

Southeast Hills Mapping
In 2017, the City developed and adopted a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based methodology to evaluate compliance with Measure PP, including identification of slopes,

ridgelines, and required setbacks. This methodology is applied to individual project sites to ensure adherence to hillside development restrictions while allowing development in areas not constrained by Measure PP or other environmental limitations.

Project Background
The Lester properties have been considered for residential development since the late 1990s, with prior proposals evaluated for consistency with hillside policies. In 2017/2018, the City Council directed staff to work with the applicant and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on a project consistent with Measure PP, including land dedication and a staging area for public access. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2019, with direction to reduce density and refine the staging area location. Subsequent work was paused in 2021 to prioritize the Housing Element update, but has resumed and been underway since 2023.

Housing Element Update
As noted in the more detailed section of the Housing Element Update in the Planning Commission report (Attachment 4), the City’s adopted 2023 Housing Element identified the project site as Area 1 - Lester, which allows up to two residential dwelling units per acre, for a maximum number of 31 residential units; the proposed 30 residential unit project would be consistent with this designation.

General Plan
Although the properties are currently unincorporated, they lie within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and General Plan Planning Area, with the primary development area located inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Most of the project (approximately 45 acres) is designated Low Density Residential (LDR), allowing up to two units per acre; the proposed 30 units (including two existing homes) result in a density of 0.67 units per acre, consistent with this designation. However, portions of the site, including certain proposed lots and existing residences, are designated Open Space–Public Health and Safety, where development is generally limited to one single-family home per qualifying existing lot of record. As a result, while the majority of the project is consistent with the General Plan, amendments to the Land Use Map are required to accommodate development in these areas. The overall balance of acreage designated for residential development, versus open space, remains consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations.

Table 1 in Attachment 4 summarizes the City of Pleasanton’s 2005-2025 General Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations for each parcel, and Figure 2 of Attachment 4 illustrates the existing General Plan Land Use designations with the proposed project.

Zoning District
The project site is pre-zoned PUD–OS–A&G/OS–PH&S/LDR/HOZ, which establishes a framework for future development, including areas designated for LDR uses where singlefamily homes are permitted subject to Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards and an approved development plan.

Annexation and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) The final determination on the applicant’s ability to annex into the City and construct the project will be made by the Alameda County LAFCo. Annexation proceedings will be initiated upon approval of the various applications before the City of Pleasanton, in the form of submittal of

an application for annexation to LAFCo.

As part of the annexation process, the City would be required to negotiate an agreement with Alameda County about how future property tax revenues would be shared between the County and City. Following annexation, and pursuant to State law, the City and County will be required to negotiate and reach an agreement on how any portion of the County’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) units would be re-allocated to Pleasanton, along with any corresponding credit for construction of units on the site.

Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and Affordable Housing The IZO requires projects of 10 or more units to provide 15 percent affordable housing on-site, or pursue an approved alternative compliance method. The Hidden Canyon/Lester project was deemed “in process” prior to the 2022 IZO update and per the adopting language of the update is subject to the prior ordinance, which allows payment of in-lieu fees. The applicant has elected this option, citing financial infeasibility of on-site units, and noting the affordable housing fees for this project may be used for various City housing programs or projects. A separate Affordable Housing Agreement is not required, as compliance is achieved through payment of fees, as outlined in the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement.

Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (DA)
State law authorizes cities to enter into binding development agreements with any person who has a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of that property. A development agreement (DA) is a commitment between the City and the developer to proceed with a specific development in accordance with the terms of an agreement that describes what land use and related processes shall apply to the application. The developer gains certainty through the development agreement before committing to a substantial investment in project improvements. In exchange, the City receives certain benefits, concessions, or amenities that it may not be able to require as conditions of approval. Full details of the DA are included in Attachment 3, with key terms, including vesting of the project entitlements for a ten-year period, and several community benefits including construction of the EBRPD staging area and dedication of land to EBRPD, offsite improvements including the installation of a traffic signal to facilitate access to Dublin Canyon Road for residents of the Canyon Meadows subdivision, and payment of a $500,000 contribution towards future Dublin Canyon Road improvements.

Site and Area Description
The project site consists of five unincorporated parcels on the south side of Dublin Canyon Road, ranging from 0.9 to approximately 105 acres, including a 66-acre portion outside the UGB. Two parcels contain existing residences, while the remaining parcels are primarily undeveloped grazing areas. The project site also includes frontage along Dublin Canyon Road, separated by the Oak Hills Congregation parcel, which is proposed for annexation and will continue its existing religious use without change.

The site is a hilly terrain, with a main ridge extending from the northeast, with the southern portion of the project site descending into Devaney Canyon and Creek. The area consists primarily of grassland used for grazing, with seasonal wetlands and riparian habitat present.

Surrounding uses include established residential neighborhoods to the north and east, Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park to the south, and agricultural and low-density residential uses to the west.

Figure 1: Aerial of Project Site and Area

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes: (1) annexation of five parcels totaling 130.98 acres; (2) General Plan amendments to re-designate select areas between Open Space–Public Health and Safety and Low Density Residential; (3) rezoning parcels to PUD–OS-A&G/OS-PH&S/LDR; (4) PUD approval to construct 28 new single-family homes, rebuild two existing homes, install infrastructure, develop a public staging area, and dedicate 70.3 acres to EBRPD; (5) a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 128.5 acres into residential lots, private open space, and public open space; and (6) a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement.

Site Design and Development
The project proposes a gated subdivision with 28 new two-story detached single-family homes, two replacement single-story homes for the Lester family, and associated open space and infrastructure improvements. Figures 3–6 in Attachment 4 depict the site plan and vesting tentative map (additional exhibits are provided in the draft EIR).

Lots 1–5 are located along the northern portion of the site near Dublin Canyon Road, while Lots 6–28 are generally situated in the central area. Parcel A includes Lots 1–28 and will serve as privately owned homeowners association (HOA) open space. Parcel B, located to the south and west, will be dedicated to EBRPD.

The Lester homes are designated as Lots 29 and 30 on the eastern portion of the site and are not part of the subdivision. Parcel C, southwest of the Lester lots, will remain largely

undeveloped aside from a staging area, retained by the Lester family under a life estate, and ultimately dedicated to EBRPD. Parcel D, adjacent to Lots 10 and 11, is designated for a stormwater treatment basin.

Architectural Plans and Styles – Ponderosa Subdivision
Lots 1–28 range in area from 7,373 to 14,884 square feet and are developed with three floor plans between approximately 3,750 and 4,243 square feet. The homes feature four architectural styles with varied elevations and three color schemes per style to ensure visual diversity and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Plan types are distributed throughout the subdivision to enhance streetscape variation. Select lots (4, 7, 15, 24, 25, and 28) include attached accessory dwelling units.

Development standards, including lot area, setbacks, floor area ratio, and height, are summarized in Table 2 (Attachment 4). Elevations are provided in Exhibit B, Attachment 2.

Architectural Plans and Styles – Lester Properties
The two existing Lester residences would be replaced with single-story homes on new Lots 29 and 30, measuring 41,723 and 29,038 square feet, respectively. Each home utilizes a 2,451- square-foot floor plan. Lot 29 is designed in a Cottage style and Lot 30 in a Bungalow style, both reflecting architectural themes and materials consistent with Pleasanton and nearby newer subdivisions.

Applicable development standards are provided in Table 3 (Attachment 4), with elevations included in Exhibit B, Attachment 2.

EBRPD Staging Area and Private/Public Open Space
The proposed project includes dedication of land and construction of a new publicly accessible staging area for the EBRPD, located south of Lester Lot 29 and accessed via a driveway along the eastern side of the Lester properties. The driveway would provide eight parallel parking spaces leading to a gated staging area featuring a paved parking lot with a total of 18 parking stalls, a vault restroom, water fountain, seating, and trailhead access. The staging area would connect to a future EBRPD trail extending south into Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park. The staging area would be constructed in accordance with EBRPD standards, serving as a key trailhead access for the northern terminus of the park’s trail system and implementing a component of the EBRPD master land use plan. The project also includes a public access road along a portion of the existing non-exclusive easement on the eastern boundary of the Lester property. Figure 7 in Attachment 4 illustrates a focused view of the location of the staging area.

In conjunction with these improvements, a total of 117.1 acres would be designated as open space across four parcels: Parcel A (39.9 acres) and Parcel D (0.3 acres) would be owned and managed by the Ponderosa HOA; Parcel B (69.3 acres) would be dedicated to EBRPD; and Parcel C (7.6 acres) would remain under current Lester family ownership but is proposed for future dedication through a life estate agreement. Upon the passing of the remaining family members, Parcel C would transfer to EBRPD ownership, ultimately consolidating approximately 76.9 acres of open space, staging, and trail facilities for long-term public use.

Public and Private Roadways, Circulation and Access
The project includes frontage improvements along Dublin Canyon Road, including a new traffic

signal at Canyon Meadows Drive, bike lanes, and a sidewalk connecting to the EBRPD trailhead. Internal circulation is provided by private streets accessed through a gated entry, with an emergency vehicle access (EVA) route extending through the project site. Additional features include connections to the Oak Hills property, ranch access beyond the UGB, and improved access to the Lester property and future EBRPD staging area. The new subdivision’s HOA will maintain private streets and landscaping. Through the DA, the project developer will provide a $500,000 contribution to the City toward future Dublin Canyon Road improvements.

Infrastructure Improvements
The project would connect to the City’s water system, including new water mains throughout the site and to the Lester properties and staging area. The EBRPD staging area would be served by water but utilize a vaulted restroom without sewer connection.

Grading
Grading would occur on approximately 21.2 acres, with balanced cut and fill, avoiding the need for soil import or export. Grading is designed to avoid impacts to Devaney Creek and minimize disturbance of slopes over 25 percent, except where necessary for road construction and limited EVA improvements. Please refer to Attachment 4 for a more detailed description of project amenities.

DISCUSSION
Annexation and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The project site is located outside of the Pleasanton city limits, but within the City’s SOI and UGB. As such, annexation of the project site, along with the adjacent Oak Hills property located at 10971 Dublin Canyon Road, is required prior to development. The annexation is consistent with applicable Alameda County LAFCo policies, which promote orderly and logical boundary adjustments.

Annexation of these properties would represent a logical extension of the City’s boundaries and ensure that development occurs in a comprehensive manner consistent with the City’s General Plan and Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC). The project site is identified in the City’s Housing Element, and has been designated for low density development in the General Plan land use map for many years. Annexation would facilitate implementation of Housing Element programs that encourage annexation of contiguous unincorporated lands for residential development, and would allow the City to apply its development standards, infrastructure requirements, and environmental review processes to the project, while LAFCo would retain authority to review and approve the boundary change to ensure consistency with regional policies.

Annexation of the property would include negotiation of a tax-sharing agreement with the County, and negotiation of the apportionment of RHNA among the City and the County. The County does not reflect any units for this site in their inventory, and absent the ability to connect to City utilities, the development potential of this site within the County would be limited. In preliminary discussions with County staff, it is expected that a similar approach will be taken as for the recently approved Merritt project, which allowed the County to receive credit for a small number of units, consistent with the development capacity under County zoning and without municipal utilities, with the City able to obtain credit for any units in excess of this number, including any ADUs.

General Plan Land Use and Policy Conformance
The project site is designated LDR, Open Space–Public Health and Safety, Open Space– Agriculture and Grazing, and Housing Element Overlay. While some development is proposed in areas currently designated Open Space–Public Health and Safety, the project includes corresponding redesignation of other areas from LDR to Open Space, resulting in a reallocation rather than an increase in residential land.

The General Plan supports such amendments where they further hillside and environmental objectives, including preservation of ridgelines, protection of natural landforms, and clustering development in less constrained areas. Consistent with these policies, the project concentrates development on lower-gradient portions of the site while redesignating steeper and more visually prominent areas as Open Space, minimizing grading and maintaining contiguous open space.

Accordingly, the proposed amendments maintain the overall General Plan framework, are consistent with hillside and resource protection policies, and result in a more appropriate distribution of uses without a net loss of open space. The site is also identified in the 2023 Housing Element (Area 1 – Lester), allowing up to 31 units; the proposed 30 units comply with this density limit and would contribute Above-Moderate housing units towards the City's RHNA, consistent with the Housing Element
In addition, the proposed project supports/promotes the General Plan Goals, Programs, and Policies as listed in full in Attachment 4.

Zoning and Use Conformance
The City Council approved the pre-zoning of Pre-zoned-PUD-OS-A&G/OS-PH&S/LDR (Planned Unit Development-Open Space-Agriculture & Grazing/Open Space-Public Health and Safety/Low Density Residential/Housing Opportunity Zone) Districts for the project site in 2023 as part of the Housing Element update. The approved uses for the project site include detached single-family residential development and open space; thus, the proposed project conforms with the current pre-zoning designations.

Affordable Housing
The City’s IZO requires new single-family residential projects of fifteen units or more to provide at least 15 percent of units at prices affordable to very low, low, and/or moderate-income households, and pursuant to the provisions made for projects “in process” at the time of the update to the IZO, would be permitted to pay the City’s Affordable Housing in-lieu fee, pursuant to PMC Chapter 17.40, and as reflected in the recommendation.

Objective Design Standards (ODS) and Site Development Standards Although designated as a Housing Site in the City’s Housing Element, because the proposed project was submitted prior to the adoption of the City’s ODS, those standards are not applicable to the proposed project.

Rather, given the PUD pre-zoning for the project site, the applicant is permitted via a PUD development plan to establish the minimum site development standards for the project. As stated previously, Lots 1 through 30 include, but are not limited to, minimum lot area, minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratio, and maximum building height.

A PUD development plan allows flexibility in applying PMC standards to achieve an innovative overall plan for project sites and the area. The applicant developed the current site plan with input from the Planning Commission during a Work Session and numerous discussions with staff prior to and after formally submitting the PUD application. The applicant was considerate of the position of the buildings to provide adequate setbacks from the property lines and new street frontages, and maximized the usability of the site. While the subject site is relatively large, Measure PP, the UGB, and open space requirements limit the allowable developable area to the flatter portions of the site, avoiding hillside and ridgeline areas. Due to these sitespecific constraints, smaller lot sizes with home sizes commonly used for new single-family home development make the floor area ratios (FARs) for the new homes relatively high; however, the overall visual appearance of the new homes, largely surrounded by open space, is in keeping with existing adjacent residential subdivisions in the area.

Site Layout and Design Features
The site layout reflects a clustered development approach that concentrates residential units within the less constrained and flatter portions of the site while preserving a substantial portion of the property as open space. This design strategy minimizes environmental disturbance, reduces grading, and maintains the visual integrity of the surrounding hillsides.

The project includes 30 single-family residential lots (28 new and two reconstructed units) arranged along an internal roadway network designed to follow natural contours and reduce cut-and-fill impacts. Significant areas of the site, approximately half of the total acreage, would be preserved as permanent open space and dedicated to the EBRPD, providing long-term habitat protection and public access opportunities.

Additional site design features include the construction of a public staging area with parking, restrooms, and trail connections to the Pleasanton Ridge trail system, enhancing regional recreational access. The layout also incorporates infrastructure improvements that balance development with safety and environmental considerations.

Overall, the site design is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage preservation of open space, sensitive siting of development, and integration with regional trail systems.

Architecture and Design
The proposed residential architecture is designed to reflect a high-quality, semi-rural character consistent with the surrounding area and the City’s hillside development standards. Homes would feature varied architectural styles, materials, and elevations to create visual interest and avoid uniformity. Building designs incorporate articulated facades, varied rooflines, and natural materials such as stone and wood accents to blend with the natural landscape. The scale and mass of the homes have been carefully considered to minimize visual impacts from public vantage points, including Dublin Canyon Road and nearby open spaces.

The architectural and design approach supports the project’s goal of integrating residential development into a sensitive hillside environment while maintaining a cohesive and highquality visual character.

Traffic and Circulation
The project includes transportation improvements to provide safe and efficient access via Dublin Canyon Road, including a gated entry, installation of a traffic signal, and associated

roadway modifications to improve circulation and safety for vehicles and pedestrians. While the signal is not required under standard warrants, it is proposed to facilitate protected turning movements and safer crossings. Additional improvements include roadway widening, intersection enhancements, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, all consistent with City standards and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer.

As identified in the EIR, the project would result in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts exceeding applicable thresholds. Although feasible measures to support alternative transportation modes are incorporated, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, reflecting broader regional travel patterns in low-density areas.

Notwithstanding these impacts, the proposed improvements would enhance local traffic operations and safety along Dublin Canyon Road and surrounding roadways.

Measures PP and QQ
The proposed project has been designed to minimize development within the site’s steeper areas; however, it includes grading associated with roadway construction, lot creation, and related improvements on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Consistent with prior City Council interpretation of Measure PP, roads are not considered “structures” and therefore are not prohibited within these areas. Accordingly, the proposed staging area, which does not include structural development, is not subject to Measure PP restrictions. The grading necessary to establish the roadway network that provides access to the subdivision and individual lots facilitates a site design that avoids the placement of residential structures on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Furthermore, the proposed project is not near a ridgeline. It is noted that, while the mapping shows several small areas that would represent steep slopes beneath proposed lots, these areas represent minor topographic variations (e.g. rocks, small hillocks and depressions), detected due to the high degree of precision available in today’s survey technology, within larger areas that otherwise are below the threshold 25 percent grades.

These features are topographic anomalies that, in the staff’s view, fall outside the scope or intent of the voter-approved hillside protection measure.

Development Agreement
As proposed, a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement between the City and the applicant would establish the terms under which the project may proceed (Attachment 3); however, it is contingent upon annexation of the project site into the City, with the applicant responsible for initiating and funding the necessary LAFCo proceedings.

The agreement also includes a range of public benefits, including construction of an EBRPD staging area with parking, restrooms, water facilities, and a trail connection to the Pleasanton Ridge trail system, along with ongoing maintenance funding; dedication of open space to EBRPD subject to a conservation easement; installation of a traffic signal and related improvements at Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadows Drive; a $500,000 contribution toward future Dublin Canyon Road improvements, including potential bridge widening; and development of 28 residential units consistent with the City’s Housing Element. The developer would also be responsible for payment of all applicable City impact fees and other development-related fees, including those for Zone 7, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.

Overall, the agreement would provide public benefits in the form of open space preservation,

transportation and infrastructure improvements, and financial contributions, while providing the applicant with certainty regarding applicable regulations and project timing.

Other Topics
Other topics relevant to the project, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, and Climate Action Plan, are discussed in more detail in the Planning Commission agenda report in Attachment 4.

Planned Unit Development Considerations
PMC Section 18.68.110 sets forth the purposes of the PUD District and considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan. These purposes and considerations are set forth in the draft Resolution (Attachment 2) and includes whether the plan is in conformance with the City General Plan, in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and whether the plan would be compatible with developed properties in the vicinity. As described in Attachment 2, and based on the information and analysis provided in this agenda report, staff recommends the City Council make the required findings to approve the General Plan amendments, rezoning, and PUD development plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22, 2026, to review the proposed project and provide a recommendation to the City Council. In addition to the applicant, four members of the public spoke. Two speakers, residents of the Canyon Meadows subdivision located north of the project site, expressed support for the project, specifically citing the proposed installation of a traffic signal. A third speaker, a resident of The Preserve subdivision located east of the project site and adjacent to EBRPD open space, raised concerns regarding hillside development and project visibility, referencing prior comments from the 2019 scoping meeting related to additional tree planting for screening.

At the request of the Planning Commission, a representative from EBRPD also provided public comments, expressing support for the project. EBRPD staff indicated the proposed staging area location is well-suited to help alleviate demand at the existing Foothill Road staging area and would provide an additional access point to the Pleasanton Ridge.

After listening to public testimony and discussing the project, the Commission voted 5-0 to adopt resolutions recommending 1) certification of the FEIR; 2) approval of Annexation, General Plan amendments, rezoning, PUD Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, and 3) approval of the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review, and a Final EIR (FEIR), including responses to comments and revisions, was subsequently completed. The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency and is provided in Attachment 1.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 and 15091, the City Council must certify the FEIR, confirm it was reviewed and completed in compliance with CEQA, and adopt findings for each significant impact. The EIR evaluates environmental effects of project construction and operation, concluding that most impacts would be less than significant or reduced to less than significant with mitigation, as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

(MMRP).

Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant with Mitigation Potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics (light and glare), biological resources, geology and soils (including paleontological resources), and hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures in the MMRP. Impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology, noise, recreation, and utilities are less than significant without mitigation.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR identifies transportation-related vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts as significant and unavoidable. While mitigation measures would reduce VMT, they would not achieve the level of reduction necessary to meet applicable thresholds, and no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified to further reduce these impacts. As such, both project-level and cumulative VMT impacts remain significant and unavoidable, which is typical for low-density residential development in areas with limited transit access.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
Because the EIR identifies a significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT, approval of the project requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As outlined in the Findings, project benefits include development of a Housing Element site, preservation and dedication of substantial open space, expansion of public access to regional recreational amenities, and roadway and safety improvements. These benefits are determined to outweigh the project’s unavoidable VMT impacts.

Based on the EIR, and with the adoption of the CEQA Findings, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the project has been analyzed in compliance with CEQA, and all necessary findings for certification can be made.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
The proposed development is well-designed, would preserve a large amount of open space, provide a public amenity through the construction of a staging area, and would be compatible with other residential developments in the immediate vicinity. Staff and the Planning Commission, therefore, find that the annexation, General Plan amendments, rezoning, PUD development plan, Vesting Tentative Map, and Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement provide an appropriate degree of community and financial benefits to merit a favorable approval by the City Council, subject to the draft conditions included in Attachment 2.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The proposed project would increase housing opportunities by providing new market-rate housing, paying affordable housing fees, assisting in advancing sustainable land uses, adhering to green building practices, and protecting Devaney Canyon and Creek.

OUTREACH
Notice of this meeting was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within 1,000-feet of the subject properties, and project identification signage has been posted on-site by the applicant. At the time of this report’s publication, staff had not received any public comments.

Similar noticing was provided in advance of the Planning Commission public hearing, and

comments provided for that meeting are outlined above. Public comments received after publication will be forwarded to the City Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs – Strategy 6.b, which aims to implement the Housing Element and additional residential rezoning. The project would add 28 new residential units to Pleasanton’s housing stock.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project developer would be responsible for payment of fees and for the costs (either fully or on a pro-rata basis) of various required utility or infrastructure improvements as set forth in the conditions of approval and the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement. Also, the project developer would contribute $500,000 for the City’s use towards future improvements on Dublin Canyon Road, install a traffic signal, which is not required based on the standard traffic signal warrants, as a part of the project to improve access to Dublin Canyon Road, and design and construct a staging area for the EBRPD. With the Dublin Canyon Road contributions, the DA would provide at least an equitable financial benefit to the City, compared to potential revenues foregone through vesting.

The project would incrementally increase the demand for City services but in addition to payment of development impact fees, would also add ongoing property tax revenue, as well as incremental sales tax revenue associated with materials used for construction of the proposed project. It is noted that the ultimate property tax increment will be based on a tax-sharing agreement to be negotiated between the City and County, which will be subject to City Council review and approval at a later date, as part of the annexation proceedings.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Natalie Amos, Associate
Planner
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution with Exhibits - Certifying the EIR

2. Ordinance for Annexation, General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, PUD development plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map w Exhibits A-C

3. Ordinance Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement

4. Planning Commission Agenda Report dated April 22, 2026, with Exhibits C and D

5. PowerPoint Presentation

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON

CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HIDDEN

CANYON RESIDENCES AND PRESERVE PROJECT, AS FILED UNDER
CASE NO. P18-0078, P18-0079, P18-0081, PUD-130, AND TRACT 8569 WHEREAS, on March 30, 2018, Ponderosa Homes II (the “Applicant”) submitted applications for Annexation (P18-0078), General Plan Amendments (P18-0079), Rezoning (P18-0081), a Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD-130), and a Tentative Tract Map (TRACT 8569) for the properties located in unincorporated Alameda County adjacent to the northwestern portion of the City of Pleasanton; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City subsequently negotiated a proposed PreAnnexation and Development Agreement to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project includes constructing 28 new detached singlefamily residences and roadways on approximately 23.89 acres of an approximately 130.98-acre project site, demolition and reconstruction of two existing single-family residences located in the northeastern portion of the development site, dedication of approximately 104.6 acres of public open space, various on and off-site improvements, and annexation of a portion of the project site into the City of Pleasanton (hereinafter “the Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located at 11033 Dublin Canyon Road (APN 941- 2500-002), 11021 Dublin Canyon Road (APN 941-2500-003), APN 941-2600-002-6, 10807 Dublin Canyon Road (APN 941-2700-2), and 10971 Dublin Canyon Road (APN 941-2700-1); and
WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared for the Project and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated August 22, 2019, to public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day consultation period on the scope of the EIR ending on September 23, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public scoping meeting on September 11, 2019, to provide comment and receive public feedback on the scope and content of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, based on the project description and responses to the NOP, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated November 14, 2025, (SCH No. 2019080461) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Draft EIR, a copy of which is posted on the City’s website, https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/our-government/community-and-economicdevelopment/short-range-projects/, and is incorporated herein by reference; and ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. 2026-

WHEREAS, the City circulated the Draft EIR for a 60-day public review period, from November 21, 2025 to January 20, 2026. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional, and State agencies. The public was advised of its availability. The Draft EIR was available for review on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed a Staff Report dated December 10, 2025, and the Draft EIR at a noticed study session on December 10, 2025, during the 60-day comment period; and
WHEREAS, the public and the Planning Commission had the opportunity to present written and oral comments on the Draft EIR at the Planning Commission study session on December 10, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from public agencies as well as interested individuals and organizations during the public review period. In accordance with the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public review period, both oral and written. The City prepared a Final EIR dated March 2026 labeled Exhibit A included hereto and made a part hereof. The Final EIR included an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The responses to comments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, information was generated in the course of preparing written responses for the Final EIR. The City carefully reviewed both the comments and the written responses to assess whether they constituted significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR under the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. After its review, the City determined that the Final EIR, including the comments, clarifications, and minor corrections to the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR was posted on the City’s website on April 15, 2026, and referenced in the public notice for the April 22, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 22, 2026, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and related Draft and Final EIRs for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, and the Draft and Final EIRs at a noticed public hearing on April 22, 2026, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs, reflect the City’s independent judgment and

Resolution No. 2026-

analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the Project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified a significant and unavoidable environmental impact of the Project. Approval of the Project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of Alternative Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is included as Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the complete Project EIR consists of the Draft EIR and Final EIR together. The Draft and Final EIRs are available for review on the City’s website at https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/our-government/community-and-economicdevelopment/short-range-projects/, and at the Community and Economic Development Department during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the EIR and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Pleasanton Community and Economic Development Department, 200 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA 94566; and
WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public meeting of April 22, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the written agenda report, all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and staff recommendations, and then recommended certifying the EIR and approval of the Project to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public meeting of May 19, 2026, and prior to taking action on the Project, the City Council considered written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”), and made the following determinations based on the Record Evidence.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

B. The Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Project EIR, including the written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR and written responses to the comments, prior to making a recommendation on the Project.

C. The Project EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis as to the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and provides information

Resolution No. 2026-

to the decisionmakers and the public on the environmental consequences of approving the Project.

D. The Project EIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and a reasonable range of alternatives.

E. The City Council adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pleasanton certifies the Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

FINAL
Environmental Impact Report
Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2019080461
Prepared for:

City of Pleasanton
Community Development Department
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
925.931.5613
Contact: Natalie Amos, Associate Planner
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Prathna Maharaj, AICP, Senior Project Manager
Date: April 15, 2026
Z
^K>hd/KE
y,//d

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2: Master Responses ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - List of Master Responses ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 - Master Responses .......................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3: Responses to Written Comments ............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 - Responses to Comments ................................................................................................ 3-1 Section 4: Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments ........................................................... 4-1

4.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 - Responses to Comments ................................................................................................ 4-1 Section 5: Errata ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments .................................................................. 5-1 Exhibits
Revised Exhibit 2-7a: Visual Simulation Dublin Canyon Road Project Entrance ................................ 5-11 Revised Exhibit 2-7b: Visual Simulation Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadow Drive............... 5-13

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Pleasanton (Lead Agency) has evaluated the comments received on the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR includes a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR; responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; and errata, or revisions to the Draft EIR; as well as a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for use by the City of Pleasanton during its review.

This document is organized into five sections:
x Section 1–Introduction. Provides an introduction to the Final EIR. x Section 2–Master Responses. Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a particular topic.
x Section 3–Responses to Written Comments. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section. x Section 4–Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments. Provides responses to all verbal comments received at the Planning Commission meeting held on December 10, 2025 to solicit public comments on the Draft EIR. A link to the full recorded public meeting is included in this section.
x Section 5–Errata. Includes a listing of refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR, which have been incorporated.

The Final EIR includes the following contents:
x Draft EIR (provided under separate cover)
x Draft EIR Appendices (provided under separate cover)
x Master Responses, Responses to Written Comments on the Draft EIR, Responses to Public Meeting Verbal Comments, and Errata (Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this document) x Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/released/032626 DV/21480016 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx SECTION 2: MASTER RESPONSES
Master responses address similar comments made by multiple public agencies, businesses, organizations, or individuals through written comments submitted to the City of Pleasanton. Master responses are provided in the order in which they are referenced in Section 3.

2.1 - List of Master Responses
x Master Response 1—Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final EIR x Master Response 2—General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in the Final EIR

2.2 - Master Responses
Master Response 1—Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final EIR Summary of Relevant Comments
Various comments received either (1) reference non-environmental issues outside of the scope of recognized California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) frameworks; or (2) relate to social, economic, or general health and safety topics that are not project impacts related to the physical environment and thus fall outside the scope of CEQA. Generally, these comments, referred to herein collectively as “Non-CEQA Issues” involve, but are not limited to, the following topics:
x Economic effects or other similar perceived impacts related to property values, development costs, taxation, maintenance costs, and infrastructure costs; x New suggestions for elements of the proposed project or conditions of approval unrelated to environmental topic areas;
x Document length;
x Traffic congestion;
x Non-project-related infrastructure concerns; or
x Social effects or other similar concerns related to the proposed project’s impact to community culture.

These comments do not raise significant environmental issues or provide input about the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. This Master Response addresses why these Non-CEQA Issues are not further addressed in the Final EIR and confirms that these comments will nonetheless be included in the administrative record and provided to City decision-makers for consideration during the proposed project’s public hearing process.

Response
In compliance with CEQA, the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the proposed project to adversely impact the physical environment based upon an assessment of identified significance thresholds.

Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must evaluate comments on the Draft EIR and prepare written

Master Responses
City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project &inal EIR
2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/released/032626 DV/21480016 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx responses for inclusion in the Final EIR. (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a), 15132). The written responses must describe the disposition of any “significant environmental issues” raised by commenters. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)).

However, CEQA does not require that a lead agency respond to every comment received on an EIR, but only comments raising significant environmental issues. (PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a), (c), 15132(d), 15204(a)).

The CEQA Guidelines specify that comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). “Economic or social effects of a project” in and of themselves “shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15131(a)). Economic and social effects that are not related to physical impacts shall not be evaluated in an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15604(e), 15131(a), 15131(b)). Accordingly, issues related to revenue loss, infrastructure cost, budget deficits, parking and similar economic and/or social concerns are appropriately not addressed in this environmental document.

Additionally, as identified in the “Thresholds of Significance” section within each topical section (Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare through Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant), the City as Lead Agency elected to analyze the proposed project against the significance thresholds in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether the proposed project would have significant environmental impacts to that specific environmental topical area, which is the City’s standard practice for EIRs.

Several comments identify concerns that could be generally characterized as relating to a specific topical section, but these comments neither relate nor apply to any of the thresholds utilized by the Lead Agency and detailed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, nor otherwise specifically relate to an adverse physical impact of the project on the environment.

With respect to comments concerning the format, style or length of the Draft EIR, CEQA does not mandate page limits or require environmental documents to be reduced in length based on preference. The suggestions in Guidelines Section 15141 are aspirational–not mandatory.

Importantly, CEQA requires that environmental documents be sufficiently detailed to enable informed decision-making and meaningful public participation, while disclosing and analyzing the environmental issues raised by the project. (PRC §§ 21061, 21080.3; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(b), 15151).

CEQA further requires that documents be prepared with sufficient detail to respond to the full range of environmental issues and viewpoints presented. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(b), 15144).

Accordingly, the Draft EIR has been organized to enhance readability and public access, including the use of headings, summaries, and clear topic separation, consistent with CEQA’s directive that environmental documents be understandable. (CEQA Guidelines § 15140). The fact that the document addresses issues in detail does not render it legally deficient; to the contrary, providing a thorough explanation of the relevant considerations supports informed public review and a robust administrative record.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/released/032626 DV/21480016 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Accordingly, the comment regarding document length does not identify a violation of CEQA, nor does it demonstrate that the document fails to meet CEQA’s informational or analytical requirements. No changes to the document are required in response to this comment.

For the reasons explained above, the Final EIR will not provide further responses to comments on Non-CEQA Issues. However, as previously indicated, each comment will be included in the administrative record on the proposed project and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration as part of the public hearing process on the proposed project. In this regard, the City will review, evaluate, and consider, as determined appropriate, all comments received as part of the decision-making process. See also Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR. No changes are warranted, and no further response is required.

Master Response 2—General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR Summary of Relevant Comments
Several commenters expressed general opposition to the merits of the proposed project but did not raise any significant environmental issues related to the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis; and/or objected generally regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis but did not provide a specific basis to support the asserted inadequacy. The City reviewed all such general comments and prepared this Master Response to address them accordingly. Comments that were more specific in nature and provided supporting information are addressed in the individual, unique responses. The general comments addressed in this Master Response fall into one of several categories:
x The comment broadly identified environmental topics and/or requested additional evaluation but did not provide supporting information as to why additional evaluation would be required; x The comment identified general concerns or questions related to broad topical areas, but did not provide any specifics related to the project or the analysis in the Draft EIR; x The comment asked for additional studies, mitigation, or alternatives without explanation, supporting information, or rationale;
x The comment presented generalized claims challenging the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR which were not supported by data or references offering facts; or x The comment stated an opinion, speculation, or conclusion regarding the proposed project but did not (1) provide any rationale, or (2) raise any issues related to the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis.

The foregoing types of comments received in response to the Draft EIR are referred to herein collectively as “general opposition” and are the focus of this Master Response.

Response
As also discussed in Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final EIR, above, comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and the adequacy of measures designed to avoid or mitigate

Master Responses
City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR
2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/released/032626 DV/21480016 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx those impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments” and provide data, references, or other evidence to support their comments (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)).

CEQA requires that the Final EIR address comments submitted during the public comment period that raise significant environmental issues on the adequacy of the Draft EIR (PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). CEQA considerations are limited to significant issues as these relate to potential adverse physical impacts of the proposed project on the environment. General comments and comments that consist merely of speculation or unsupported criticism may be rejected or answered with only a general response.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204, in part states:
x In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and the ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. . . . [R]eviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of [specified] factors. . . . CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). x Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)).

Pursuant to CEQA, personal opinions expressing general support for, or opposition to, the proposed project are noted and will be included within the administrative record for the proposed project for consideration by the City, but do not require a specific written response if they do not relate to a significant environmental issue that is addressed within the Draft EIR and/or otherwise within the purview of CEQA. Likewise, opinions about the general desirability, merits, and/or purely economic, social, or political considerations of the proposed project are not within the purview of CEQA and do not require a specific written response in this Final EIR. See also Master Response 1, Non-CEQA Issues Not Addressed in the Final EIR, above.

In cases where the commenter provides an opinion and/or generalized concerns about the merits of the proposed project and/or the scope and nature of the environmental review but does not identify any particular issue concerning the sufficiency of the Draft EIR, the City notes the opinion in this Final EIR for informational purposes and consideration by the decision-makers as part of the public hearing process on the merits of the proposed project.

Where a commenter offers unsubstantiated assertions about an environmental issue or the adequacy of the Draft EIR, the City notes the assertion in this Final EIR for informational purposes

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/released/032626 DV/21480016 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx and consideration by the decision-makers but does not alter or augment the analysis in the Draft EIR, pursuant CEQA Guidelines Section 15204.

Each comment will be included in the administrative record on the proposed project and will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration as part of the public hearing process on the merits of the proposed project. In this regard, the City will review, evaluate, and consider, as determined appropriate, all comments received prior to making a decision on the proposed project.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1
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 SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

3.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided written comments on the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

Author Author Code
State Agencies
California Department of Transportation .................................................................................CALTRANS Department of Toxic Substances Control ...................................................................................... DTSC 1 Department of Toxic Substances Control ...................................................................................... DTSC 2 Local Agencies
Dublin San Ramon Services District ............................................................................................... DSRSD East Bay Regional Parks District ..................................................................................................... EBRPD Organizations
Lisjan Nation .................................................................................................................................... Lisjan Individuals
Andrew Gelb ............................................................................................................................... A.GELB 1 Anonymous ......................................................................................................................... ANONYMOUS Cornell Holmes ........................................................................................................................ C.HOLMES Mary Jo Carreon ................................................................................................................... M.CARREON Robert Devany ....................................................................................................................... R.DEVANY 1 Robert Devany ....................................................................................................................... R.DEVANY 2 Scott Miner ................................................................................................................................. S.MINER Tim Hyles ...................................................................................................................................... T.HYLES Ted Vinson .............................................................................................................................. T.VINSON 1

3.2 - Responses to Comments

3.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Pleasanton, as the Lead Agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2019080461) for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-2 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 document becomes part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.

1 From: Ayon, Llisel@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:10 PM
To: Natalie Amos
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Hidden Canyon DEIR - Caltrans Comments
Attachments: Hidden Canyon DEIR - Caltrans.pdf
Hello Natalie,
Please see the attached letter for Caltrans comments on the above referenced project. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Llisel Ayon
Associate Transportation Planner
Caltrans, District 4 | Local Development Review
Cell: (510) 506-6184

CALTRANS

1

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
January 20, 2026 SCH #: 2019080461
GTS #: 04-ALA-2019-01010
GTS ID: 16997
Co/Rt/Pm: ALA/580/R22.558
Natalie Amos, Associate Planner
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Re: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project ɔ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Natalie Amos:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the November 2025 DEIR.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position or approval by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project would build 28 new detached single-family residential units and roadways on approximately 23.89 acres of a 30.98-acre project site within the City of Pleasanton near Interstate (I)-580.

Travel Demand Analysis
The project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s (LCI) Technical Advisory. Per the DEIR, this project is found to have significant and unavoidable VMT impact.

CALTRANS

1 CONT
2

Natalie Amos, Associate Planner
January 20, 2026

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Mitigation Strategies
We encourage the project applicant to develop and implement an effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from future development in this area. TDM programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by a TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take to achieve those targets.

Please also consider the measures listed below, which are quantified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional VMT:
x Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
x Provide Secure Bike Parking
x Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
x Construct or Improve Bike Facilities
x Construct or Improve Bike Boulevards
x Expand Bikeway Networks
x Provide Traffic Calming Measures
x Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
x Improve first and last mile connections
VMT Mitigation Program
Please consider exploring the following options to help further reduce the VMT impact if the implementation of applicable TDM measures is insufficient to mitigate the project VMT impact to a less-than-significant level: VMT based Transportation Impact Fee programs, VMT Mitigation Exchanges, and VMT Mitigation Banks. Please note that Caltrans has funded several local/regional agencies to study the feasibility of a variety of VMT mitigation programs through the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant program (link). Caltrans welcomes the potential opportunities to work with the City.

Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link). Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN).

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact LDR[email protected].

CALTRANS

2 CONT
3

Natalie Amos, Associate Planner
January 20, 2026

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

CALTRANS

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-7
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 State Agencies
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
Response to CALTRANS-1
This comment provides introductory remarks. 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 CALTRANS-2
A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for Hidden Canyon Residences & Preserve Residential Development in Pleasanton, California was prepared for the Draft EIR and is included in Appendix H.

Please note that the List of Appendices in the Draft EIR erroneously labels Appendix H as Noise Supporting Information. Appendix H contains Transportation Supporting Information and Appendix G contains Noise Supporting Information. Moreover, Appendix H does not contain information related to police and fire services, as stated on page 3.12-1 of the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 5, Errata, of this document for the revised list of appendices for the proposed project.

The VMT analysis concludes that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT. Although there is no feasible project specific mitigation, as described on pages 203 through 205 in Appendix H of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include the following VMT mitigation strategies consistent with the requirements of the City’s Housing Element:
x limit parking supply
x provide bike parking
x improve street connectivity
x improve pedestrian facilities
x expand the bikeway network
x provide neighborhood traffic calming measures on internal roadways Accordingly, the proposed project would implement VMT reduction strategies recommended by the Alameda County Transportation Commission VMT Tool. A full description of each strategy and associated VMT reduction potential is provided in Appendix H. Collectively, these measures are estimated to achieve a combined VMT reduction of 14 percent. As noted on page 2 of this comment letter, the VMT analysis and impact significance determination are “undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s (LCI) Technical Advisory.” Based on the VMT analysis provided in Appendix H of the Draft EIR, the proposed project complies with the VMT mitigation measures required under the City of Pleasanton 2023–2031 Housing Element. As such, no further mitigation measures related to VMT would be required for the proposed project.

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.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-8 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 Response to CALTRANS-3
Comment noted. 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

1 From: CEQAReview <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:42 PM
To: POD; CEQAReview; Natalie Amos
Cc: Purvis, Tamara@DTSC
Subject: RE: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project _Phase I and Phase II Good afternoon,
Apparently the Phase I was mentioned as Appendix F in the document but does not appear in this link. We will draft a comment letter based on the document as we were not able to review the Phase I, thanks!
CEQA Unit
HWMP-Permitting
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection Agency
[email protected]
From: POD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:08 PM
To: CEQAReview <[email protected]>; Natalie Amos <[email protected]> Cc: Kereazis, Dave@DTSC <[email protected]>; Purvis, Tamara@DTSC <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project _Phase I and Phase II Hello, Thanks for reaching out. A link to the EIR (and appendices) is located here: https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/our-government/community-and-economic-development/short-range-projects/ Best, Megan Planner on Duty Planning Division, Community Hello,
Thanks for reaching out. A link to the EIR (and appendices) is located here:
https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/our-government/community-and-economic-development/shortrange-projects/ Best,
Megan
Planner on Duty
Planning Division, Community & Economic Development Department D: 925-931-5600
C: 925-437-4009
[email protected]
DTSC 1

1

2 City of Pleasanton | P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566 Permit Center In-Person Hours
Mondays: 9 am to 4 pm
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays: 9 am to 1 pm
Fridays: Closed
From: CEQAReview <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 2:14 PM
To: Natalie Amos <[email protected]>; POD <[email protected]> Cc: Kereazis, Dave@DTSC <[email protected]>; Purvis, Tamara@DTSC <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project _Phase I and Phase II Good afternoon,
Forwarding our request below as Natalie Amos is out of the office.

Thanks,
CEQA Unit
HWMP-Permitting
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection
Agency
[email protected]
From: CEQAReview <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 2:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Kereazis, Dave@DTSC <[email protected]>; Purvis, Tamara@DTSC <[email protected]> Subject: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project _Phase I and Phase II Good afternoon Natalie,
While conduction Responsible Agency Review for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project, we wanted to review the following assessments and were unable to find them on the State Clearinghouse Project page.

Appendix F: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information F.1 - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment F.2 - Phase II Environmental Site Assessment We are requesting copy of these assessments so we can complete our review.

Thank you,
DTSC 1

1 CONT

3 CEQA Unit
HWMP-Permitting
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection
Agency
[email protected]
DTSC 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-13
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 Department of Toxic Substances Control 1 (DTSC 1)
Response to DTSC 1-1
This comment is noted for the record. The List of Appendices in the Draft EIR erroneously labels Appendix F as Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information, noting the inclusion of a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. These reports were not prepared for the proposed project. Appendix F of the Draft EIR is Hydrology and Water Quality Supporting Information. Refer to Section 5, Errata, of this document for the revised list of appendices for the proposed project. 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 From: CEQAReview <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 10:03 AM
To: Natalie Amos
Cc: [email protected]; Prathna Maharaj; Purvis, Tamara@DTSC; Wiley, Scott@DTSC; Kereazis, Dave@DTSC
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project SCH #2019080461
Attachments: DTSC Comments - Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project_ADA.pdf Dear Natalie Amos,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project. Attached our DTSC’s comments for consideration.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances.

CEQA Unit
HWMP-Permitting
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection Agency
[email protected]
DTSC 2

1

dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
November 25, 2025
Natalie Amos
Associate Planner
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
[email protected]
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HIDDEN CANYON RESIDENCES AND PRESERVE PROJECT DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2025, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2019080461
Dear Natalie Amos,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project (Project). The proposed Project would build 28 new detached single-family residential units and roadways on approximately 23.89 acres of an approximately 130.98-acre project site within the City of Pleasanton. Project implementation would also include the demolition and reconstruction of two existing single-family homes located in the northeastern portion of the development site, dedication of open space, and annexation of a portion of the project site, including the existing Oak Hills Congregation Church Site, into the City of Pleasanton to ensure a logical reorganization of City of Pleasanton boundaries. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, several contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present. The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring DTSC 2

2

Natalie Amos
November 25, 2025

further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin.

Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they do not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required. These recommendations should be adhered to and become part of the environmental document. Please refer to the DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage for the most recent guidance and screening levels.

2. DTSC recommends all imported soil/fill material be tested to ensure all COCs meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Furthermore, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the soil/fill and knowledge of prior land use.

3. The City of Pleasanton should consider soil testing as mentioned in comment #1. If, in the event any COC results are above DTSC residential screening levels, DTSC recommends the City of Pleasanton address the contaminations within the Project area through an Environmental Site Assessment and/or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC DTSC 2

2 CONT
3 4

Natalie Amos
November 25, 2025

oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the relevant Regional Brownfield Coordinator for your Project.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
DTSC 2

4 CONT

Natalie Amos
November 25, 2025

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Ponderosa Homes II, Inc
Project Applicant
[email protected]
Prathna Maharaj
Senior Environmental Project Manager
First Carbon Solutions
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
DTSC 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-21
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 Department of Toxic Substances Control 2 (DTSC 2)
Response to DTSC 2-1
This comment is included in the administrative record. This comment 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 DTSC 2-2
As stated in Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page 3.8-3 and 3.8-4, of the Draft EIR, the project site is primarily undeveloped, is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and has no areas of concern on the project site identified by DTSC’s EnviroStor. The project site has been used as rangeland for cattle grazing since the early 1900s. This comment is noted and is included in the administrative record.

The Draft EIR adequately addresses hazards and hazardous materials consistent with CEQA. DTSC’s recommendations are acknowledged and will be incorporated into project implementation, as applicable, through compliance with existing regulatory programs and site-specific investigation and mitigation, should previously unidentified contamination be discovered. The commenter’s recommendations will be provided to the Lead Agency and the project applicant for further consideration. This 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 DTSC 2-3
As noted in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-54, the proposed project would not require the off-haul or import of dirt for construction activities. The commenter’s recommendations will be provided to the Lead Agency and the project applicant for further consideration. This comment is included in the administrative record. This 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 DTSC 2-4
This comment is noted and is included in the administrative record. The commenter’s recommendations will be provided to the Lead Agency and the project applicant for further consideration. This 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

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 From: Jaclyn Yee <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2025 2:56 PM
To: Natalie Amos
Cc: Steven Delight; Irene Suroso
Subject: DSRSD Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve, City of Pleasanton
Attachments: DSRSD Comments 12.24.2025 - signed.pdf
Hi Natalie,
Attached is the response letter from DSRSD for the DEIR for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve. If you have any questions feel free to reach out.

Jackie Yee
Senior Engineer
Dublin San Ramon Services District
P: (925) 875-2258
DSRSD

1

December 24, 2025
Natalie Amos
Associate Planner
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Email: [email protected]
Subject: DSRSD Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve, City of Pleasanton
Dear Natalie Amos:

The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Development.

DSRSD distributes drinking water and recycled water to the City of Dublin and Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon, provides wastewater collection and treatment for the City of Dublin and southern portion of the City of San Ramon and, by contract, treats wastewater from the City of Pleasanton. DSRSD is also a member of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), which discharges treated wastewater from the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD into San Francisco Bay by the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA). By contract, DSRSD is also responsible for the operation and maintenance of the LAVWMA facilities.

As described in Table ES-1: Impact UTIL-3 of the DEIR, the Project states that the proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Under the existing Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services dated November 3, 1992, DSRSD provides wastewater treatment services to the City of Pleasanton. Per the 1992 agreement, any future plans for either a temporary emergency or future connection to the City of Pleasanton’s wastewater collection system would require coordination and review with DSRSD.

Provide confirmation that this development was coordinated with DSRSD between 2015-2017 to be included as part of the DSRSD master plan. This should also include the Biological Oxygen Demand (“BOD”) and Total Suspended Solids (“TSS”) shall also be analyzed with the flow.

The DEIR provides no evidence to support the conclusion that the additional flow, BOD, and TSS generated by the Project in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future developments would not exceed the City's allocated capacity in the regional WWTP. Water conservation has had a major impact on the ratio of flows to solids that are received at the regional WWTP. Because of conservation DSRSD

1 CONT
2

December 24, 2025

and reduced per capita water use, flows to the WWTP have remained relatively constant even as growth has occurred, but solids have continued to increase. As these water use trends project into the future, solids are likely to be the constraint in treating future wastewater flows.

The impacts of the Project and related development on DSRSD's ability to comply with the San Francisco Bay Nutrients Watershed Permit, which was adopted by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board in July 2024, must be evaluated. The DEIR does not analyze the nutrient impacts of the Project and related development that could be annexed into the City, and thus the DEIR fails to identify how potential nutrient impacts of this cumulative development will be mitigated. The Nutrients Watershed Permit requires Bay area agencies discharging to San Francisco Bay to collectively reduce nutrients by 40% over the next 10 years, as compared to a 2022 baseline. Any additional flow from the Project and future developments in the area will impact nutrient loading at the WWTP. These impacts must be identified, evaluated, and mitigated to the extent it is feasible to do so.

DSRSD looks forward to reviewing the final EIR for the Project. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Jaclyn Yee at (925) 875-2258.

Sincerely,
Jaclyn Yee
Senior Engineer
cc: Steve Delight, Engineering Services Director
Irene Suroso, Senior Engineer
DSRSD

2 CONT









 


 





 

!" 

#

$%




&

'

$


(

)*

$+
,)- )./0 )123)-34"$56
8


8
*



$

$ 




 

!" 

#

$%





9


:5
35'
$

 


)$

6
!
#

$%
.

&







9

:5
35'
+
; < 


)$

6
!
#

$%





/
=
:5
35'
$


&



)$

6
!
#

$%
&












:5
35'

'
$


; 
& 

$









:5
35'
DSRSD

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-27
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 Local Agencies
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Response to DSRSD-1
This comment provides introductory remarks and is included in the administrative record. 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 DSRSD-2
Wastewater treatment and conveyance services for the proposed project would be provided by the City. The City owns and operates sanitary sewer lines throughout the City, and conveys wastewater to the DSRSD regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Through a contract agreement with the City, DSRSD provides wastewater treatment services to the City.

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, page 3.15-15, DSRSD’s Recycled Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) provides primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment, and has an average dry-weather wastewater flow (ADWF) design capacity of 17 million gallons per day (mgd). The City is currently entitled to half of this treatment capacity, or 8.5 mgd. At the time of the last General Plan Amendment, the City’s average annual wastewater flow was approximately 6 mgd. Thus, the current 8.5 mgd wastewater treatment capacity is sufficient to serve the City’s planned buildout growth as anticipated in the City’s General Plan, including the City’s updated Housing Element adopted in 2023, which included the project site as a Housing Element Opportunity site. In their comment in response to review of the Draft Program EIR for the 2023-2031 Housing Element (SCH Number 2022040091), DSRSD stated, “the RWTF serving the City would have adequate capacity to treat the potential increase in wastewater flow associated with Housing Element requirements.” DRSD further indicated that an update to the 2017 RWTP Master Plan was planned for 2024 that would evaluate changed conditions that may impact future loading capacity. As of the preparation of the Final EIR for the proposed project, this update has not been completed. The City shall participate in a wastewater loading study with the DSRSD to assure that the proposed project’s generated wastewater would be sufficiently treated given existing treatment capacity.1 As part of its ongoing master planning process, DSRSD will identify actions that will need to be implemented to accommodate the increased loading generated by customers within its service area through the future planning horizon year (2050). Any identified changes to the DSRSD treatment process will be funded through increases in customer service rates and through connection fees imposed upon future projects, including the proposed project. The proposed project would be required to pay applicable fees to reflect its fair share contribution to the DSRSD in support of maintenance of its existing facilities and any planned equipment or process refinements identified as part of its master planning.

Further, as stated on page 3.15-18 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 0.01 mgd of wastewater flows. This amount of wastewater generation would represent approximately 0.1 percent of the DSRSD RWTF treatment capacity that the City is entitled to. The proposed project, in combination with the most recent wastewater flow estimates, would 1 Personal email communication with Jackie Yee on behalf of the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) on February 2, 2026.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-28 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 account for approximately 6.01 mgd of the available 8.5 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity from the DSRSD RWTF.

Approximately 2.4 mgd of wastewater treatment capacity would be available for other reasonably foreseeable projects within the City. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with identified cumulative projects in the City’s service area, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to wastewater generation and wastewater treatment facilities.

Moreover, as discussed on page 3-3 in the DSRSD’s Wastewater Treatment & Biosolids Facilities Master Plan, the most recent ADWF expansion project (Stage 4 Improvements Project) provided for the ADWF capacity of 17 mgd mentioned above, as predicted by the previous DSRSD Master Plan.2

2035 influent Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) flows are less than those that served as the basis for the Stage 4 Improvements Project design. Specifically, the maximum daily load for BOD is 63,200 pounds per day less than what was previously projected and the maximum daily load for TSS is 56,300 pounds per day less than the amount accounted for in the previous ADWF expansion. Moreover, these projections were based on population estimates that included the City. However, the City’s population has decreased compared to the population projection since the creation of DSRSD’s Master Plan in 2017; from approximately 78,800 to approximately 75,664; as noted on page 4-3 of the Draft EIR. As such, there would be capacity to treat approximately 63,200 pounds per day of BOD and 56,300 pounds per day of TSS for the development of the proposed project.

In relation to nutrients, agricultural uses are known to directly contribute to the amount of nutrients in water.3
The current project site zoning district is Agriculture, with a portion of the project site being mapped as grazing land. Development of the proposed project would result in the construction of single-family residences and would not include any agricultural uses on the project site. Additionally, DSRSD’s Raw Wastewater Diversion Project would produce recycled water to meet the agency’s irrigation demand and was identified by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to significantly reduce total inorganic nitrogen nutrient loads to the San Francisco Bay.4

As noted on page 3.15-16 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would adhere to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Program, which requires implementation of outdoor irrigation water conservation measures and practices. This is not anticipated to conflict with DSRSD’s Raw Wastewater Diversion project. Given that agricultural uses are associated with the addition of nutrients into receiving waters, the residential uses anticipated as part of the proposed project are not likely to significantly increase nutrients in wastewater from the project site. This comment is 2 Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Wastewater Treatment & Biosolids Facilities Master Plan. Website:
https://www.dsrsd.com/files/assets/waterservice/v/1/engineering/documents/master-plans/wastewater-treatment-and-biosolidsfacilities-master-plan-september-2017-final.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2026. 3 United States Geological Survey (USGS). Agriculture and the Quality of the Nation’s Waters. Website:
https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/agriculture-and-quality-nations-waters#overview. Accessed February 6, 2026. 4
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). Order R2-2024-0013 NPDES Permit CA0038873. Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2024/R2-2024-0013.pdf.

Accessed February 6, 2026.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-29
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 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

January 20, 2026
Natalie Amos, Associate Planner
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
RE: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project – Draft Environmental Impact Report The East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project (Project). The Park District owns and manages over 126,000 acres of open space throughout Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park located directly adjacent to the Project.

The Project proposes to develop 28 residential units, replace two existing single-family homes located on the Lester family lot, and permanently preserve approximately 117 acres as open space, with approximately 69.3 acres of that dedicated to the Park District and an additional 7.6 acres to be transferred to the Park District as part of the Life Estate directive of the Lester Family Trust. As determined in coordination between the Park District, City of Pleasanton, and the applicant Ponderosa Homes, the Project would also dedicate to the Park District a staging area with 29 vehicle parking spaces, a trail connection from the staging area into the adjacent Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park trail system, and an access road onto the Parcel B open space from the end of Street “A” for grazing purposes.

While the Park District has maintenance access along the driveway from Dublin Canyon Road directly east of the Lester property, the Park District notes that a public access easement is needed for allowing public access onto the Lester driveway from Dublin Canyon Road to access the staging area. The Park District also notes that a survey of the driveway will need to be conducted to determine where the trail connection from the staging area can cross the driveway to meet with the Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park trail network, as the Park District has a pedestrian access easement along the portion of the roadway owned by property owner, Ted Vinson.

The Park District will continue to coordinate with the City of Pleasanton and Ponderosa Homes as the Project moves through the approval process to ensure that the establishment of an appropriate long-term funding mechanism is included as part of project approval. If a conservation easement is required to be placed on the open space dedication, the Park District will work with the City of Pleasanton and Ponderosa Homes towards a long term management plan and endowment for the open space.

Thank you for your consideration of the Park District’s comments. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (510) 544-2320 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kim Thai
Principal Planner
East Bay Regional Park District
y
Ki Th i
EBRPD

1 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-33
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 East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD)
Response to EBRPD-1
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 EBRPD-2
EBRPD and the project applicant are currently coordinating on access to the proposed EBRPD facilities with the adjacent private property owner. As discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description on page 2-27, the EBRPD easement providing access to the proposed trailhead would be a new paved access road along a portion of the existing non-exclusive access easement located along the eastern boundary of the Lester property. 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 From: Lisjan Nation <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 3:38 PM
To: Natalie Amos; Derek Farmer
Subject: Ponderosa Homes II
Attachments: Ponderosa Homes II, Pleasanton.pdf
Thank you for reaching out to the Tribe. We received your notification and will wait to receive formal consultation on this matter. Thank you.
'Uni (Respectfully),
Cheyenne Zepeda, Cultural Resource Manager I
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation
LISJAN



LISJAN


&217

LISJAN


&217

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-39
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 Organizations
Lisjan Nation (LISJAN)
Response to LISJAN-1
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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6833/(0(17$/0$7(5,$/
3URYLGHGWRWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
$IWHU'LVWULEXWLRQRI3DFNHW
'DWH'LVWULEXWHG
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 12/10/2025
A. GELB



A. GELB



A. GELB


&217





THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-46 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 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 1-3
The proposed project has changed since 2019. As noted in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-27, the proposed project would preserve 117.1 acres of open space on the approximately 130.98-acre project site. Development would only occur on approximately 23.89 acres of the project site. In an effort to preserve scenic hillsides and ridge views, the City’s General Plan discourages grading to construct residential structures on slopes of 25 percent or greater under Program 20.3 and Measure PP. The proposed project would include the approximately 23.89 acres of development within the lower topographic portion of the project site and would not include development on 25 percent or greater slopes, consistent with General Plan Program 20.3 and Measure PP. Additionally, as explained on Draft EIR page 2-54, grading on the project site has been designed to avoid potential impacts to Devany Creek and its associated vegetation and to provide a transition to the natural grades beyond the building envelopes. Exhibit 2-9 on page 2-41 in the Draft EIR displays the grading plan for the proposed project.

Moreover, as stated on Draft EIR page 3.1-11, the proposed project would provide landscaping and trees that would enhance views of the project site and promote harmony with the existing landscape. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s hillside regulations established in the General Plan and Municipal Code. 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 1-4
Please refer to Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. This Master Response provides a response to comments that express general comments on the proposed project or the environmental analysis.

Draft EIR Chapter 4, Effects found Not to be Significant, page 4-2 and 4-3 states that the project site was evaluated as a Housing Opportunity site under the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and associated Housing Element Update Program EIR. The Housing Element Update proposed updates to the project site’s zoning district to allow for 31 dwelling units on the Hidden Canyon project site to support the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The proposed project would include the development of 28 dwelling units and the reconstruction of two existing homes, which would be consistent with the zoning evaluated in the City’s Housing Element Update.

As discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-54, grading on the project site would be balanced and neither off-haul nor import of soil would be required. Additionally, grading on the development site and open space has been designed to avoid potential impacts to Devany Creek and associated vegetation and to provide a transition to the natural grades beyond the building envelopes. The proposed project would also incorporate the geotechnical recommendations resulting from the design-level geotechnical investigation in accordance with Mitigation Measure

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.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-48 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 Please refer to the Response to A.GELB-3 and A.GELB-4 for a discussion related to hillsides and grading on the project site. Please refer to the Response to A.GELB-2 and A.GELB-5 for a discussion of visual impacts related to the proposed project. Please also refer to Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document.

This Master Response provides a response to comments that express general comments on the proposed project or the environmental analysis. 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.

1 From: EHOA <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 10:12 PM
To: Natalie Amos
Subject: Public Review and Comment- Dublin Canyon Rd
Attachments: IMG_9630.jpeg; IMG_9632.jpeg
RE: Short Range Proposed Developments along Dublin Canyon Road , APNs 941-2500-002, 941-2500- 003, 941-2600-002-6, 941-2700-2 and 941-2700-1
Dear Ms. Natalie Amos and City Planning Division,
We submit this formal public comment regarding the proposed church development and new residential units in the area.

While we do not oppose these projects, we respectfully request that the City require the inclusion of Conditions of Approval to mitigate the cumulative impacts on existing residents and surrounding properties.

The combined developments are expected to increase traffic, noise, and activity in the neighborhood.

Existing conditions already include traffic noise and electrical humming from nearby utility and communications infrastructure. Without mitigation, these impacts could significantly affect residential livability.

We are particularly concerned with transportation safety. There is currently no dedicated bicycle lane infrastructure, despite frequent bicycle use. Increased vehicle trips, construction traffic, and service vehicles stopping along the roadway create hazards for cyclists, pedestrians, and residents.

Additionally, ongoing noise from the utility and communications hub, combined with unpaved easements that become muddy and unstable during rainfall, raises safety and livability concerns.

Construction and long-term activity associated with the proposed developments may further exacerbate erosion, drainage issues, and hazards for pedestrians and residents.

We respectfully request that the City require the following Conditions of Approval or comparable enforceable measures:
• Utility Easement Improvements: Stabilization or paving of easement areas to address erosion, drainage, and pedestrian safety.
• Noise Attenuation Measures: Installation of sound walls, barriers, or fencing near the utility and communications infrastructure.
• Traffic and Safety Mitigation: Implementation of traffic-calming measures and evaluation for bicycle infrastructure or other bicycle safety enhancements.

ANONYMOUS

1 2
3 4
5

2 • Construction Management: A plan to minimize noise, traffic disruption, and safety hazards during construction.

We request that these comments be fully considered as part of the environmental review and final project approvals.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

Sincerely,
Concerned Local Residents

ANONYMOUS

5 CONT

ANONYMOUS

5 CONT

ANONYMOUS

5 CONT

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

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-54 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 from the proposed project development would not conflict with adopted congestion management agency standards.

Furthermore, existing ambient noise measurements were conducted on the project site in October of 2024, accounting for all existing noise-generating sources, and included in Appendix G of the Draft EIR. Draft EIR Section 3.11, Noise, page 3.11-17, notes that the proposed project would result in a temporary reasonable worst-case construction scenario of noise levels up to 74 dBA Leq, which would be below the City’s applicable construction noise threshold of 86 dBA. Draft EIR page 3.11-18 states that vehicle trips generated by proposed project operations would not double average daily or peakhour traffic volumes and would result in a less than 1 dBA increase in traffic noise levels, which is well below the 4 dBA increase that would be considered significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on traffic noise levels would be less than significant. In addition, Draft EIR pages

3.11-18 and 3.11-19 discuss proposed project operational noise levels associated with utility infrastructure in the form of mechanical ventilation equipment. The proposed ventilation equipment would be located approximately 160 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor property line. At this distance, noise level calculations would not exceed the City’s noise performance thresholds of 60 dBA at the nearest receiving residential property line. Therefore, any operational noise impacts resulting from proposed project development, including mechanical equipment, would be less than significant without mitigation required. Noise calculations for the proposed project are included in Appendix G of the Draft EIR.

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-3
As stated in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-27, the proposed project would include construction of 6-foot-wide bicycle lanes on both sides of Dublin Canyon Road along the project site frontage and would provide a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on Dublin Canyon Road to the EBRPD staging area and trailhead. These bicycle and pedestrian facilities were evaluated in Draft EIR Section 3.14, Transportation, page 3.14-12, and were not anticipated to interfere with bicycle accessibility to project site and adjoining areas; or conflict with an existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facility; or conflict with policies related to bicycle and pedestrian activity adopted by the City. Moreover, as noted on Draft EIR page 3.14-14 and 3.14-15, the proposed bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalk would be sited to be adequately accommodated by the proposed project streets and the EBRPD driveway to avoid creating hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant without mitigation required. This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the decisionmakers 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.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-55
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 Response to ANONYMOUS-4
Refer to the Response to ANONYMOUS-2 for a discussion of the less than significant noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Please also refer to the Response to ANONYMOUS-3 for a discussion of pedestrian circulation hazards.

As noted in Draft EIR Section 3.6; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, page 3.6-28, the proposed project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 9.14 which requires construction projects to conform to the C.6 Construction Site Control Requirements in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (MRP) (Order No. R2-2022-1108; NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). The C.6 Construction Site Control Requirements mandate construction projects that disturb more than one acre of land to file a Notice of Intent and prepare an erosion/pollution control plan or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain a Construction Stormwater General Permit. The SWPPP or erosion control plan will identify site specific best management practices (BMPs) that will implement erosion, run-on and runoff, and sediment control measures to prevent the discharge of sediments. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 9.14 would ensure that impacts related to erosion would be less than significant.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement engineering recommendations from a design-level geotechnical study under MM GEO-1. As discussed on Draft EIR page 3.6-30, under MM GEO-1, a qualified Geotechnical Engineer would provide recommendations in site plans and design features that would be incorporated into the project grading and building plans to reduce potential impacts associated with unstable soil conditions, in accordance with the California Building Code. Thus, with incorporation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to unstable soil and subsurface conditions would be less than significant. 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-5
Please refer to the Response to ANONYMOUS-4 for a discussion of erosion and drainage. Refer to the Response to ANONYMOUS-2 for a discussion of less than significant noise impacts related to the proposed project development and traffic. Please also refer to the Response to ANONYMOUS-3 for an explanation of traffic safety. Impacts related to soil erosion, unstable soil conditions, hazardous roadway design, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and noise were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures would be required. 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C. HOLMES

1 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-59
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 Cornell Holmes (C.HOLMES)
Response to C.HOLMES-1
A Transportation Impact Study was prepared for the proposed project and is included as Appendix H of the Draft EIR. This report included a sight distance analysis, which is incorporated in the Draft EIR.

Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-7b of the Draft EIR is mislabeled as Dublin Canyon Road Project Entrance but actually shows the existing Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadows Drive intersection as well as a simulation of what the intersection would look like after project implementation. As shown, there would be a significant improvement in visibility as well as the addition of a traffic signal, striping and markings to enhance safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Section 5, Errata, includes the corrected Exhibit titles. 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 C.HOLMES-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 as it relates to development of the proposed project. Concerns regarding existing accident patterns or safety conditions on roadways not affected by the proposed project are outside the scope of CEQA review for this project, unless the proposed project would exacerbate those conditions. The Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would not substantially worsen traffic safety conditions on nearby roadways.

The City nevertheless recognizes that traffic safety is an important community concern. Comments received during the public review period are part of the administrative record for the proposed project and are reviewed by City staff with expertise in the relevant subject areas, including transportation and public works. Concerns related to roadway operations, maintenance, and traffic safety within the City’s jurisdiction may also be addressed outside the CEQA process through routine City programs, service requests, or future capital improvement planning, as appropriate. 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 From: MARY JO CARREON <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2025 12:49 PM
To: Natalie Amos; [email protected]
Subject: Project concerns on Dublin Canyon
Hello,
My name is Mary Jo Carreon and I reside at . I am concerned about the proposal of a traffic light at Canyon Meadows because I fear that I will be unable to make a left hand turn out of my housing development. During periods of heavy traffic we are able to use the acceleration lane/access lane to wait until there is an opening and be able to safely join traffic. I am afraid that if there is a traffic light at Canyon Meadows traffic will be stopped on Dublin Canyon and I won't be able to get out. I am afraid it would improve traffic conditions at Dublin Meadows but make it worse for us. Is there a way to add an acceleration lane by Canyon Meadows instead of a light? Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mary Jo Carreon
M. CARREON

1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-63
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 Mary Jo Carreon (M.CARREON)
Response to M.CARREON-1
A Transportation Impact Study was prepared for the proposed project and is included as Appendix H of the Draft EIR. This study includes an analysis of traffic operations as a result of traffic signal construction on Dublin Canyon Road. Page 7 of Appendix H states that the proposed signal would improve operations at the intersection of Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadows Drive. The installation of a traffic signal at this intersection as part of a package of roadway improvements intended to address existing and future traffic conditions, improve overall intersection safety, and provide controlled and predictable access for all roadway users, including residents of Canyon Meadows, Oak Hills Congregational Church, and through traffic on Dublin Canyon Road.

Specifically, during the peak-hours, the intersection would operate at LOS A for all “Plus Project” conditions. As described on page 12 in Appendix H, LOS A represents a very low control delay where many vehicles do not stop at all. Furthermore, the installation of the signal would improve roadway safety by limiting concurrent vehicular path conflicts between Canyon Meadows Drive and the existing church driveway and provide a protected pedestrian crossing across Dublin Canyon Road for residents trying to access the nearby park. With respect to the commenter’s concern about left-turn access from nearby residential developments, signalization is expected to improve overall traffic operations by introducing defined gaps through signal phasing, rather than relying on opportunistic merging during heavy traffic conditions. Therefore, the Transportation Impact Study concluded that the signalized intersection would operate within acceptable parameters and would not result in unsafe or unmanageable access conditions for adjacent neighborhoods and traffic impacts related to the installation of a traffic signal for the proposed project would be less than significant. 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

R. DEVANEY

1 2
3 4
5 6

R. DEVANEY

7

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-67
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 1 (R.DEVANY 1)
Response to R.DEVANY 1-1
This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Draft EIR Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant, Section 4.2.1, Agriculture Resources and Forestry Resources, page 4-2 states that the proposed project would continue to provide access to Assessor’s Parcel Number (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. The project applicant would be required to coordinate with the City and EBRPD regarding specifications for this easement as a project condition of approval. Therefore, no impact related to agriculture or forestry resources would occur.

Response to R.DEVANY 1-2
Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-2b displays the local vicinity of the project site with the proposed project site plan. This exhibit includes aerial imagery, as well as project site feature delineations. Exhibit 2-3 depicts the existing parcels within the project site. The parcel number is provided for each property in the project site. Exhibit 2-2b and Exhibit 2-3 are not intended to show land use designations, as that is displayed on Exhibit 2-4 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Exhibit 2-4 contains the land use designations for parcels within the City and within Alameda County within the vicinity of the project site. Moreover, Draft EIR Section

3.10, Land Use and Planning, pages 3.10-1 through 3.10-3 include textual descriptions of land uses within and surrounding the project site. 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 1-3
As described in Draft EIR Chapter 1, Introduction, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was provided to agencies, including the County of Alameda (County), with potential jurisdiction over or expertise related to the project in order to solicit input on the scope and content of the environmental analysis. The County did not submit comments in response to the NOP during the scoping period.

Comments received from other agencies and members of the public (see Draft EIR Chapter 1, Introduction, Table 1-1), were considered in determining the issues analyzed in the Draft EIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082 and 15083. Accordingly, the NOP circulation process complied with CEQA requirements, and the County was afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project during the scoping phase. Additionally, the Notice of Availability for review of this Draft EIR was provided to the County. However, no comments on this Draft EIR were received from the County. 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 1-4
The City’s Planning Commission meeting for the proposed project occurred on December 10, 2025; however, the public review period closed on January 20, 2026. The purpose of the public hearing

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 decisionmakers 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

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-69
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 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 1-7
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, pages 3.10-11, the proposed project would annex the project site into the City and rezone the project site to PUD-LDR/A/OS-HOZ. The proposed project would be consistent with the rezoned project site zoning district. Thus, impacts would be less than significant without the incorporation of mitigation. As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-27, the proposed project would preserve 117.1 acres of open space on the approximately 130.98-acre project site. Additionally, as discussed on Draft EIR pages 4-2 and 4-3, the proposed project would have no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources. 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DEVANY RANCH
4044 Los Arabis Drive, Lafayette, CA 94549 | 925-818-9765 January 10, 2026
Ms. Natalie Amos
City of Pleasanton
P.O. Box 520,
Pleasanton, California, 94566
Dear Ms. Natalie Amos:

On behalf of the owners of the Devany Ranch (APN 941-2600-1-3), this letter documents our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by the City of Pleasanton (City) for the development project commonly known as Hidden Canyon as described in the City’s DEIR Notice of Availability dated December 23, 2025.

Our comments are shown below. We note that comment 1 presented herein was presented verbally in part at the December 10 public hearing. We request that the City respond to both the verbal and written comments.

Comments
Dear Ms. Natalie Amos:

On behalf of the owners of the Devany Ranch (APN 941-2600-1-3), this letter documents our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by the City of Pleasanton (City) for the development project commonly known as Hidden Canyon as described in the City’s DEIR Notice of Availability dated December 23, 2025.

Our comments are shown below. We note that comment 1 presented herein was submitted verbally in part at the December 10 public hearing. We request that the City respond to both the verbal and written comments.

Comments

1. My family owns the 160-acre parcel immediately west of the Project studied in the DIER (APN 941-2600-001-3, the “Devany Parcel”) and formerly owned much of the land within the project area. Since the period of common ownership, we have continuously used the dirt road that runs through the project area as the primary access to the Devany Parcel, where we have grazed cattle and engaged in other agricultural R. DEVANY 2




2 activities for over a century. Through this long-standing and regular use, we have legally established unrecorded access rights.

The dirt road we use is partially visible in Exhibit 2-3 aerial photograph, and a portion of it is shown in the base topographic survey in Exhibit 2-6. However, Exhibit 2-6 inaccurately depicts the road as ending in the middle of “Parcel B” when in fact it continues to the northwest corner of Parcel B, where it enters the Devany Parcel. As shown on Exhibit 2-6, the project proposes three homesites that are directly on this road.

It appears that the authors of the DEIR were unaware of both the existence of this road and its long-standing use as access to our otherwise landlocked parcel. As a result, the DEIR is deficient in failing to discuss the road and address the impacts associated with it. For example, pages 2-20 and 3.10-11 of the DEIR discuss compatibility with surrounding uses, but do not reference or analyze the incompatibility of the project as designed with the access to, and current or potential future uses of, the Devany Parcel.

Similarly, the Transportation analysis in the DEIR (Section 3-14) fails to include the traffic from the Devany parcel (which includes typical traffic associated with a working ranch, including the seasonal transportation of cattle to and from the Devany parcel using the road) in the baseline, nor does it analyze the impacts of the Project on that use or the impacts of that Devany Parcel traffic on the Project. These deficiencies are also present in the Cumulative Impacts and Project Alternatives sections of the DEIR.

To comply with CEQA, the DEIR must include these analyses and identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures to address these potentially significant impacts prior to the City Council’s consideration of the Final EIR.

2. During the December 10, 2025 public hearing, Ponderosa Homes, the developer, stated that it would provide an easement to allow access to our property. In postmeeting discussions with the developer and the property owner, it was indicated that Alameda County would record the easement; however, they suggested that the rightof-way was not a CEQA issue. Based on the issues discussed in our previous comment, both we and our expert disagree and believe this matter does constitute a CEQA issue. Accordingly, we request that the recorded easement be explicitly identified as a mitigation measure addressing the project’s impacts on our access rights.

R. DEVANY 2


&217



3 Please confirm receipt of this letter and let us know if you have any questions about our comments.

Sincerely,
Robert O. Devany
Cc: Don Devany
Joe Dearborn
Bart Heckman, Esq.

R. DEVANY 2


&217

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-76 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 established in the General Plan, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, and other transportation studies. Study intersections for the proposed project were selected in consultation with City staff and according to the City’s criteria. Measurements for existing conditions were taken during the highest one-hour volumes during weekday morning and evening peak periods, when school was in session, to account for typical traffic volumes in the proposed project area, which includes the adjacent parcel APN 941-2600-1-3.

better during both the AM and PM peak-hours. Further, on page 7, the Transportation Impact Study found that all study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS with implementation of the proposed project, including the cumulative project scenario.

Seasonal cattle movements associated with ranch operations are intermittent and episodic in nature, rather than a continuous or daily traffic generator. CEQA does not require that infrequent or seasonal activities be separately quantified or disaggregated in the traffic baseline where they do not materially affect average daily traffic volumes or operational performance of the roadway network. The Draft EIR therefore appropriately relies on standard traffic engineering practice to characterize baseline conditions.

With respect to proposed project impacts, the proposed project does not eliminate, restrict, or physically block access to the Devany Parcel, nor does it propose changes that would interfere with continued ranch operations or associated access. As discussed in Section 3.14, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in inadequate access, unsafe roadway conditions, or conflicts between project traffic and existing roadway users. Accordingly, no project-related impact to ranch access or operations was identified. Similarly, the cumulative impacts analysis evaluates whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a cumulatively significant transportation impact.

Because the proposed project does not substantially affect access to the Devany Parcel and does not introduce traffic conditions that would conflict with existing agricultural uses, the absence of a separate line-item analysis of Devany Parcel traffic does not render the cumulative analysis inadequate.

Moreover, the discussion in Chapter 6, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, describes how existing traffic to the proposed project site would remain if no development were to occur under Alternative 1 on Draft EIR page 6-11, as well as how by-right development under Alternative 2 would increase vehicle trips from existing conditions on Draft EIR page 6-22. However, there is an existing significant and unavoidable VMT impact in the project site area. As such, the required transportation impact is discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Furthermore, despite the significant and unavoidable VMT impact, the proposed project would include VMT-reducing strategies such as reducing off-street parking spaces and enhancing multimodal infrastructure, as stated on Draft EIR page 3.14-13. The Alternatives analysis appropriately focuses on whether project alternatives would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Because the Draft EIR does not identify a significant transportation impact related to Devany Parcel traffic under the proposed project, CEQA does not require a separate alternatives analysis addressing that issue.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-77
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 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 2-4
As indicated in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, page 4-2, 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. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts would occur to the adjacent agricultural land use and no mitigation measures would be required to achieve a less than significant impact. Please refer to the Response to R.DEVANY 1-1 and the Response to R.DEVANY 2-2 for a discussion of access to APN 941-2600-1-3.

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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 Subject: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project From: SCOTT MINER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2026 10:03 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Paul Gilger <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Prathna Maharaj <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project
Hello Natalie,
My Name is Scott Miner.

Our family has lived in Pleasanton for almost 50 years.

I am a lifetime member of the Lincoln Highway Association. https://www.lincolnhighwayassoc.org/
I recently read about a new residential project being proposed in the western side of Pleasanton called the Hidden Residences. I found your name and contact in the CEQA documents online for this project. I see you as the primary contact from the planning department. https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019080461/3
When reviewing the historical information contained in this series of documents, I see a brief mention of the Lincoln Highway which passes directly in front of the project. I also understand from the document and plans that there are some offsite improvement planned if this project goes through. Specifically modifications or upgrades to the section of the Lincoln Highway that passes in front of the proposed development. I am reaching out to you with my concern regarding the Lincoln Highway historical bridge or culvert over crossing that is directly to the east of the proposed project. I am concerned that the existing historical bridge from the 1913 alignment of the Lincoln Highway will somehow be removed or modified in the process of the offsite development plans. I saw nowhere in the CEQA document that even acknowledged that this historical artifact is adjacent to the project. I believe it is very important that the city of Pleasanton does everything possible to encourage the upkeep and restoration of this important piece of national history. There is also a second bridge or culvert over crossing to the east of the proposed project very close to Highway 580, also in the city of Pleasanton. I am unsure as to what the process is after the Public Comments period closes on January 20, 2026? As a longtime member of the Pleasanton community, as well as a member of the National Lincoln Highway, Association, I would request that the developer of the property be asked to preserve this important piece of history.

Caution: This is an external email and may contain suspicious subject or content. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, please contact your IT Department S. MINER

1

2 I would appreciate hearing your response and what the proposal is for this important historical structure since it is not included in the current historical discussion within the CEQA document.

Respectfully,
Scott Miner
1507 Ramblewood Way
Pleasanton, CA 94566
S. MINER

1 CONT

3 S. MINER

1 CONT

4 S. MINER

1 CONT

5 S. MINER

1 CONT

6 S. MINER

1 CONT

7 S. MINER

1 CONT

8 S. MINER

1 CONT

9 S. MINER

1 CONT

10 S. MINER

1 CONT

11 Sent from someplace on Earth
S. MINER

1 CONT

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-89
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 Scott Miner (S.MINER)
Response to S.MINER-1
Draft EIR Section 3.4, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, pages 3.4-8 through 3.4-14 includes a description of the cultural resources records utilized for analysis of the proposed project.

Additionally, the Draft EIR analyzes proposed project impacts related to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations on Draft EIR page 3.4-25. According to Section 15064.5, a historic resource includes a resource listed on or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, a resource included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource determined to be historic by the Lead Agency (the City of Pleasanton).5

The Lincoln Highway, including the bridge structure adjacent to the project site, is not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.6
The City’s General Plan does not designate the Lincoln
Highway bridge structure as a historic resource.7
Further, the portion of the Lincoln Highway
adjacent to the project site is not identified within the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).8 No impacts to historic resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 were identified within the Draft EIR.

Any construction that would occur within the off-site improvement area on Dublin Canyon Road would be designed in accordance with applicable roadway requirements. 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.
5 California Code of Regulations. Title 14, Section 15064.5. Website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR15064.5. Accessed February 2, 2026. 6 California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). California Historical Resources. Website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/.

Accessed February 2, 2026. 7 City of Pleasanton. City of Pleasanton General Plan 2005-2025. Conservation and Open Space Element. Website:
https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/assets/our-government/community-development/7.%20ConservationOpenSpace%20Element%20(SA).pdf. Accessed February 2, 2026. 8 National Park Service. National Register Database and Research. Website: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/databaseresearch.htm. Accessed February 2, 2026.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

T. HYLES

1 2
3

T. HYLES

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-93
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 Tim Hyles (T.HYLES)
Response to T.HYLES-1
Please see Response to M.CARREON-1. 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 T.HYLES-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 Draft EIR concludes that, with the proposed roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements, the project would not result in a significant transportation safety impact, including for pedestrians and bicyclists. CEQA does not require the project to correct existing conditions unrelated to project impacts. Decisions regarding the installation of additional street lighting within the public right-way may be considered by the City outside the CEQA process for this project through separate considerations. Such actions would be discretionary and would not be part of this project or required as mitigation for the proposed project. 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 T.HYLES-3
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

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5 January 2026
Ted Vinson
11029 Dublin Canyon Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Pleasanton Planning Commission
City of Pleasanton
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Ponderosa Homes/Lester Residential Home and Roadway Project. - “Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve” I have invested substantial time and effort to review the DEIR for the subject project. I find the report to be very lengthy and difficult to read. The difficulty was caused by the authors of the report who added a great deal of superfluous “filler” information. It would have been more useful to the public (who were asked to review the DEIR) if the unnecessary/nonessential information was not included, and the report was sharply focused on the environmental impacts of the project.

Presumably the authors of the report did not use “filler” to justify their fee.

I previously submitted comments on the subject development in a letter to the Pleasanton Planning Commission dated March 26, 2019. Several, but not all, of the issues I raised in the letter have been addressed under the current project proposal. I appreciate that the parking/staging area has been moved to the location presented in the DEIR. This move “saves” the beautiful and pristine meadow.

My comments/issues herein are related to four areas: transportation, hydrology, environmental impact, and project justification. If my comments/issues were already addressed in the DEIR or Appendices that discussion was not intentionally ignored by me….I simply did not find/”see” the discussion.

Transportation
I have reviewed Appendix H. It is obvious to everyone who lives in the vicinity of Dublin Canyon Road that the addition of 28 houses along Dublin Canyon Road west of Canyon Creek Circle will not appreciably contribute to the traffic problems on Dublin Canyon Road or nearby intersections.

The traffic congestion on Dublin Canyon Road is dominated by the vehicles that divert off of I580 owing to a variety of I-580 disruptions. Most often it is eastbound traffic during the PM rush hour. Only occasionally is it diverted westbound traffic. The traffic data collected to evaluate the impact of 28 new homes at a number of intersections, some quite distant, was not necessary.

T. Vinson

1 2

It is stated in Appendix H that Ponderosa Homes, in coordination with the City, is proposing to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadows Drive as part of the project. I can find no discussion of this proposed traffic signal in Appendix H. Were other alternatives such as stop signs or a traffic circle considered? If not, they should be considered at this intersection and the justification for the traffic signal over these alternatives should be given.

A traffic circle would appear to be possible at this intersection. A traffic circle will slow traffic but keep it moving. Stop signs are used at the Palomares Road and Dublin Canyon Road intersection approximately four miles to the west. A stoplight will back up eastbound traffic and create a large volume when released precluding egress from the EBRPD driveway, and other driveways to the east.

The EBRPD driveway should be referred to as the Vinson/EBRPD driveway. I own (and pay property taxes) on a substantial length (the majority) of the driveway up to the EBRPD house.

EBRPD has an easement over my property. Furthermore, the analysis of the traffic on the Vinson/EBRPD driveway is not accurate. I have four ADUs and an additional house at the terminus of the driveway on my property at the head of Devaney Canyon. EBRPD currently has a fire trail crew occupying their house along the driveway. Every workday, 11 (or more) private cars belonging to the trail crew drive to the EBRPD house. Added to this are the vehicles coming in and out from my buildings. Of course, the EBRPD fire crew, on occasion, must to respond to an emergency with their firetrucks. Finally, on occasion, there are meetings between EBRPD fire crews, and Cal Fire crews. These activities are illustrated in Figures 1 to 4. This traffic volume from my buildings and EBRPD fire crew activities is not accurately considered in the traffic analysis. This error must be corrected and considered. The figure below from Appendix H is totally incorrect:

The traffic flow into an out of the staging/parking area should not be combined with the Vinson/EBRPD driveway. The access to the staging/parking area must be kept separate from the Vinson/EBRPD driveway (but they may share the same left turn lane). The gates which will be required for both driveways should be at the road. How is a truck towing a horse trailer supposed T. Vinson

3 4

to turn around at a closed gate placed at the propsed staging/parking area? Furthermore, it is stated that 16 automobiles spaces and four horse trailer spaces will be provided in the parking lot. At the south parking lot (Tyler Ranch) I believe 74 spaces and three horse trailer spaces are provided. This is a substantial difference. How is the difference justified? Will the lack of parking spaces result in on-street parking? There is no mention of this issue or the problems that would be created if Park visitor parking were to occur on Dublin Canyon Road. An electric gate will be required for the Vinson/EBRPD driveway to keep the public from inadvertently entering the driveway. The EVA and emergency escape to/from my house and four ADU’s and the EBRPD fire crew house must be preserved and not in any way interfered with by the public using the Park.

Hydrology
The hydrologic response of a natural grass surface is very well understood. When rain falls on a natural grass surface, you have slower runoff, and a low peak flow. The hydrograph rises slowly, peaks at a relatively low flow and recedes gradually. With a paved surface there is no storage.

Rain becomes runoff almost immediately. The smooth surface increases flow velocity and causes a higher peak flow. A large volume of water is delivered quickly. The hydrograph rises sharply, peaks much higher than the natural grass surface, and falls quickly. Greater erosion and the risk of downstream flooding occur.

It is stated in the report that the project would have bio retention areas with sufficient capacity to ensure that the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion. This remains to be demonstrated, and in fact has not been demonstrated based on my observations of runoff from the paved areas in the Preserve housing development above two small canyons adjacent to the Vinson/EBRPD driveway. Stormwater runoff is “dumped” directly into the two small canyons, Canyons 1 and 2 (location shown below). A large volume of water is delivered quickly into Canyons 1 and 2. Figures 5 and 6 show the completely blocked inlet structures at the entrance to these canyons. Obviously, the inlet structures do not accommodate the high peak flows created by the paved tributary areas in the Preserve. Figures 7 and 8 show the runoff down the Vinson/EBRPD driveway at these two canyons. When the runoff reaches Dublin Canyon Road, it creates flooding across the road. Vehicles which drive through the high flood water covering the road create a “rooster tail”.

This unfortunate situation has been created because the stormwater from the paved areas in the Preserve is “dumped” into these two drainages. When the inlet structures become filled with sediment and debris the subsurface stormwater drain system no longer functions. The City of Pleasanton owns the streets and stormwater drain system in the Preserve. The City accepted this poor design from the home developer (who actually created the problem) but of course the developer “walked away” from the problem. Now the City of Pleasanton “owns” the problem. I have contacted the City of Pleasanton regarding this matter and they have done nothing to solve the problem. The runoff down the paved area at the beginning of the driveway has T. Vinson

4 CONT
5

softened the subgrade to the degree that the pavement structure is weakened and completely broken up, see Figure 9. There is no mention of this unacceptable drainage situation in the DEIR, but it must be corrected if the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve project is approved. It has a direct bearing on the Vinson/EBRPD and Parking/staging area driveways and the parking/staging area lot. Also, it is entirely conceivable that problems similar to this may occur for the proposed project.

The proposed project will divert a significant amount of water from Devaney Creek. It is stated in the report “the proposed projects bio retention areas would have sufficient stormwater capacity to serve the proposed project, preventing surface runoff”. If this is the case, then in a normal year 10 acre-feet (or more) of runoff would not flow into Devaney Creek. (Based on the proposed project increasing the impervious surface area by approximately 7.4 acres and an average annual rainfall of 18 in,) The State Water Resources Control Board regulates the diversion of water from “blue line” drainages in California. Devaney Creek is a “blue line” drainage. Have the developers contacted the State Water Resources Control Board regarding the diversion of water they have proposed? I have a 75+ year-old 2-acre lake/“stock pond“ on my property at the head of Devaney Canyon. I divert a similar amount of runoff from Devaney Creek. I am regulated by the State T. Vinson

5 CONT
6

Water Resources Control Board. Ponderosa Homes III, Inc. should be held to the same legal requirement.

Environmental Impact
Table E –1 required by the CEQA guidelines, identifies nearly every impact as “less than significant impact” or “no impact” … There are a few entries identifying a “potentially significant impact” but these are immediately dismissed. Overall, the reader/reviewer has the impression that there are no environmental concerns…..the environment is the same with or without the proposed housing development. But obviously this is not true!
In my previous comments (letter dated March 26, 2019) regarding the project, I requested a photomontage. This was provided in the report and is shown in Figure 10. Assuming this is not intentionally deceptive, it is not a correct portrayal of the site on which the homes will be built. I have provided two views of the hillside on which the homes will be built in Figure 11. These should be used as the “before” figures with the “after” to be provided when the homes and streets are added. Additional “before” photos should be obtained from Google Earth. The “after” overhead photos should show Streets A, B, and Court C and the 28 homes. “Honesty is the best policy.”
It is noted many times in the DEIR that a substantial benefit of the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve project is that it would provide a staging area and access to a trail at the north end of Pleasanton Ridge Park. The environmental impact of the public going to/from the staging/parking area to the trailhead is not given. Where will this access trail be located? How will the public be prevented from walking on the Vinson/EBRPD driveway? Will the public be prevented from wandering in the meadow and other land EBRPD will obtain from the Lesters?? No information on how the public will get to/from the staging/parking area to the trailhead is given.

In the DEIR it is stated under 2.2 ” Ponderosa Homes III, Inc., proposes to develop 28 homes to serve the growing needs of Pleasanton’s expanding workforce and to provide an open space preserve with public access to the Pleasanton Ridge trail system for hikers, bikers, and equestrians.

Working with EBRPD, this access would complete the Pleasanton Ridge trail system and would provide public access to trails and open space properties owned by EBRPD that has been envisioned and proposed over the last 30 years.” The EBRPD trail activities and open space preservation activities and the Ponderosa Homes, Inc. activities are tied together! The EIR for the public interaction with the environment, noted above, must be presented before to City Planning Commission approves the project.

The trail at the north end of the Pleasanton Ridge Park has recently been constructed with the trailhead near the Vinson/EBRPD driveway in Canyon 3. The trail to/from the staging/parking area to the trailhead has not been located by EBRPD. The public immediately trespassed over private property and a closed area at the north end of the Pleasanton Ridge Park to use the newly constructed north end trail at Canyon 3. They did so by willfully ignoring “closed area”, “private T. Vinson

6 CONT
7 8
9 10
11

property”, and “no trespassing” signs. They had to “toss” their bikes over a fence into a closed area of the Park then peddle approximately 300 yds through the closed area to gain access to the ridge trail. The bikers had no regard for private property ownership or to damage they were causing to the environment. This is a serious environmental impact and while it may be convenient for Ponderosa Homes, Inc. to ignore it in the DEIR report, it must be addressed before this project is approved by the Pleasanton Planning Commission. I state once more, how will the public go to/from the staging/parking area to the north ridge trailhead at Canyon 3 and what is the environmental impact of their movement? What measures will be implemented to ensure the rights of adjacent private property owners will be respected? Appendix A is a letter which I recently wrote to EBRPD Trail Supervisor complaining about bicyclists who were trespassing on private property and ignoring any attempt to control their movement in the north end of the Pleasanton Ridge Park. How will this behavior be controlled in the future? What is to prevent the public from wandering all over the meadow and destroying the pristine environment that is the meadow. The trespassing bicyclist behavior presented in Appendix A demonstrates what happens when you have no plan!
EBRPD projects are required to comply with CEQA, as it's a state law governing actions by public agencies that can affect the environment. EBRPD uses CEQA to review and mitigate impacts for trail development and facility construction. Therefore, EPRPD is required to submit an EIR for the staging area and trail that will lead to the Ridge trailhead. They should coordinate with Ponderosa Homes, Inc. at this time to present a DEIR for public review on the totality of the project.

In the project report, it is stated “there are no historic structures present on the project site. This statement is incorrect. The Lester family home is an early California Stucco house (to the best of my knowledge) very likely 100+ years old. The house is shown in Figure 12. What appears to be a stone column supporting the roof over the porch is shown in Figure 13. In my youth (70 years ago-the mid-1950s), I was invited into the house by Manuel Terra (Diane and Myron Lester’s grandfather) who lived in the house. The house appeared to be old, even then. I recall Manuel stated the house belonged to his parents, which would make it very old. The house is a historic resource. The City of Pleasanton requires that the character of such historic houses be preserved, especially the front façade, under city ordinances. This means the house can’t be demolished and the key features of the house cannot be significantly altered without strong justification. I can find no discussion in the EIR of this house. It must be considered, evaluated, and very likely preserved.

Project Justification
What is the “true” justification to approve the construction of 28 new luxury homes under the name Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve? If the Lester property is not annexed into the City and remains in Alameda County the land will be “preserved” because it is zoned Agricultural and no more than three new buildings can be constructed on the Lester property (e.g., primary house, T. Vinson

11 CONT
12 13
14

caretaker house, and agricultural building). This will obviously have less impact than the proposed 28 luxury homes. And to justify the construction of 28 luxury homes as serving “the growing needs of Pleasanton’s expanding workforce” (re. Section 2.2) is laughable! If the project is not approved the City of Pleasanton would not receive the property tax revenue from the 28 luxury homes….but surely this isn’t a reason the City would consider to approve the project. Furthermore, the north end of the Pleasanton Ridge Park does not need an outlet (with the problems noted above) for visitors/the public to enjoy the Park. The existing trail at the north end can be easily “looped” with a sign at the top indicating “no outlet”. Visitors could access the north end from existing parking/staging areas south ((Tyler Ranch) and east ((Castleridge Trailhead/Old Foothill Road; Foothill staging area; The Preserve staging on Laurel Creek Drive). While it is a moderate to long hike from these areas it is also a moderate hike from the proposed parking/staging to and up the newly constructed trail at the north end of Pleasanton Ridge Park. I have already made this hike.

So, what is the “real” reason”? It can’t be to preserve open space….that is better accomplished by not annexing the Lester property and not approving the project. Obviously for Ponderosa Homes and the Lesters the reason is the money/profit they receive if the project is approved. EBRPD will benefit by receiving a substantial land addition to the Pleasanton Ridge Park without paying for the land. I suspect that if the Lesters do not give EBRPD a substantial portion of their property then EBRPD will oppose the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project. EBRPD methods are well known….they tried a similar tactic with me during my Alameda County Agricultural Site Development review process (20+ years ago) but fortunately I escaped their extortion efforts.

What is the “real” reason(s) the City would annex the Lester property and approve the development? The reason(s) is not clear and not presented in the DEIR.

Very truly yours,
Ted S. Vinson
Ted S Vinson, PhD, PE
cc. Melanie D. Vinson, Attorney-at-law
William T Vinson, Attorney-at-law
T. Vinson

14 CONT

Figures 1 and 2 - Vehicles Parked at EBRPD House on a Typical Workday T. Vinson

15

Figures 3 and 4 - Vehicles Parked at EBRPD House During a Meeting with Cal Fire T. Vinson

15 CONT

Figures 5 and 6 – Blocked Inlet Structures at Canyon 1 (above) and Canyon 2 (below) T. Vinson

15 CONT

Figures 7 and 8 – Water Flowing on Vinson/Driveway at Canyons 1 (above) and 2 (below) T. Vinson

15 CONT

Figure 9 - First Carbon Solutions Photomontage from Crosby Drive T. Vinson

15 CONT

Figure10 and 11 – More Accurate Representation of ‘Before” View from Crosby Drive T. Vinson

15 CONT

Figure 12 – Historic Early California Stucco House? Terra Family Home T. Vinson

15 CONT

Figure 13 – Stone Column Supporting Roof Structure Over Porch. Appears to be Very Old.

T. Vinson

15 CONT

Appendix A
November 30, 2025
Ted Vinson
11029 Dublin Canyon Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Sean Connelly
Trails Coordinator
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605
Dear Sean,
Now that the Trail at the north end of Pleasanton Ridge Park is passable, we have had a steady stream of biker trespassers. It has been made worse by the signage that EBRPD or your Trail Contractor placed at both ends of the Trail which encourages (rather than discourages) the use of the Trail. The signs also encourage bikers to go down other routes, all of which results in their trespassing on my private driveway. In one instance, a biker was up at my barn complex meaning he peddled by at least eight “no trespassing” or “private property” signs. The annotated figures below partially illustrate the problem.

The trespassing bikers are climbing over the fence at the north end of Pleasanton Ridge. In my email dated November 5, 2025, I suggested you improve the signage at the fence at the north end of Pleasanton Ridge. Did you do so? Whatever signage exists it is not stopping the bikers! Furthermore, the “word has now spread” and substantial numbers of bikers are coming in from Dublin Canyon Road. Before the problem gets even worse you need to immediately plan to install an electric gate at the driveway entrance on Dublin Canyon Road. I am demanding (not requesting) this action. You can get power for the gate from the power pole or meter panel (Figures 10 and 11). The best location for the gate is near the entrance at the end of the broken asphalt driveway, which would allow for delivery trucks to make deliveries at this location without opening the gate.

This is our current situation for delivery trucks.

Furthermore, I will construct an electric gate on the continuation of my driveway near the EBRPD Firehouse. I need power from the EBRPD Firehouse. You should identify ASAP the EBRPD person I will work with to accomplish this objective. I will construct this gate at my expense. I can also lay the underground conduit etc. The gate at the driveway entrance is at your expense.

T. Vinson

16

It is imperative that you deal with this problem immediately. I have personally encountered seven groups of bikers (four this weekend). One biker and a group of three were heading up the driveway towards my house and Barn complex. One group of four encountered by my caretaker, were dressed like antifa criminals in all black with masks and goggles. If you are negligent and do not take action to immediately control the biker trespassing it could easily result in a violent confrontation between the bikers and the one or more of the permanent residents on my property (e.g., myself, my caretaker and his wife). You and EBRPD would be directly responsible for the consequences of any violent confrontation. I have already been threatened by one biker. Many bikers have an “attitude” and consider themselves to be “macho”. Note: I’m not driving down the driveway looking for bikers…. these are just chance encounters associated with my daily activities.

There are many more bikers on the Trail.

This morning two Alameda County sheriff’s deputies came to my house to discuss the situation.

They confronted me because one (or more) bikers reported the encounter they had with me and kicking them off my property in a “mean-spirited manner”. The sheriff’s deputies encouraged me to be “nicer” when encountering the trespassing bikers. I asked them “how many times am I supposed to deal with trespassing bikers and be nice?” No response. It is important to remember who are the victims and who are the criminals. The permanent residents on my property are the victims. In 1955, my father and mother purchased the property that I have lived on for the past 20 years. We have never experienced problems and trespassers like you/EBRPD have created with the uncontrolled access to your Trail. You and I stood on the driveway at the Trail entrance the day I met you and you stated the Trail would not be open until the staging area was complete and further noted “we don’t know when that will occur”. You are EBRPD’s representative and you are obligated to keep your word! Did you tell the Trail Contractor the Trail would not be open to the public in the foreseeable future? Why do all his signs suggest it will be open? I am expecting that you will immediately address this unfortunate situation. I would like to know when you will install the electric gate at the entrance. Also, I would like to install the electric gate at the Firehouse immediately and, therefore, would like to work with your representative to determine how this can best be accomplished. Finally, what is your plan to close the illegal access at the north end of Pleasanton Ridge?
Very truly yours,
Ted S. Vinson
Ted S Vinson, PhD, PE
cc.

Melanie D. Vinson, attorney-at-law
William T Vinson, attorney-at-law
T. Vinson

16 CONT

T. Vinson

Figure 1 Mountain Biker Near EBRPD Firehouse
Figure 1 Mountain Biker Near EBRPD Firehouse Vehicles
T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 3 Bikers Peddling Back to Ridge after Encounter with Ted S. Vinson (TSV) )
Figure 4 Bikers Peddling to Dublin Canyon Road Entrance. Biker at Lower Left Threatened TSV T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 5 Sign at the bottom of the Trail, indicating the Trail is closed and bikers who should stay off until November 26. The unambiguous implication is after November 26 the Trail is open. This is precisely how the bikers interpreted the sign, and this was stated to TSV by one biker, who said. “I thought the Trail was open after November 26.”
T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 6 Sign at the entry to the Trail at the top of the ridge which obviously implies that after November 26, the Trail is open. Did the Trail Contractor or EBRPD place this sign? The answer doesn’t matter as the Trail Contractor is EBRPD’s agent. Was the Trail Contractor ever informed that the Trail would not be open in the foreseeable future? T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 7 Sign at the entry at the top of the ridge indicating an alternate way to go down to reach TSV’s private driveway. Was the Trail Contractor ever informed that the Trail would not be open in the foreseeable future?
T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 8 Sign at the Trail entry at the top of the ridge directing bikers to a route and using the word “shred” which in mountain biking slang means they’re going to:
x descend quickly
x take corners hard
x hit features instead of avoiding them
x ride with flow and intensity
T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 9 sign at the Trail entry at the top of the ridge directing bikers to a route described as Candy which in mountain-biking slang, “candy” usually refers to something that’s especially fun, smooth, or visually appealing on a Trail. Was the Trail Contractor ever informed that the Trail would not be open in the foreseeable future?
T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 10 Breaker panel near the driveway entrance at Dublin Canyon Road, which could provide power for an electric gate on the driveway near this location T. Vinson

16 CONT

Figure 11 Street light at the driveway entrance at Dublin Canyon Road, which could provide power for an electric gate at this location
T. Vinson

16 CONT

T. Vinson

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-123
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 Ted Vinson (T.VINSON 1)
Response to T.VINSON 1-1
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 Draft EIR for the proposed project includes an analysis of all environmental topic areas, as required under CEQA. 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 T.VINSON 1-2
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 established in the General Plan, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, and other transportation studies. Study intersections for the proposed project were selected in consultation with City staff and according to the City’s criteria.

better during both the AM and PM peak-hours. Further, on page 7, the Transportation Impact Study found that all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS with implementation of the proposed project. The data collection and intersection analyses cited by the commenter provide the evidentiary basis for the Draft EIR’s finding that the project would not substantially worsen traffic conditions on Dublin Canyon Road or at nearby intersections.

Accordingly, the transportation analysis was necessary to comply with CEQA, even though it ultimately demonstrates that the project’s contribution to traffic congestion would be minimal. The Draft EIR therefore adequately evaluates transportation impacts and is not deficient for including the analyses referenced in the comment.

Response to T.VINSON 1-3

of Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadows Drive, which is reflected in the analysis of all “Plus Project” scenarios. A traffic signal was considered in development with the developer, City staff, and members of the public. Appendix H goes on to state that installation of a traffic signal at this intersection would operate at LOS A for all “plus Project” conditions on pages 29, 36, and 40. As described on page 12 in Appendix H, LOS A represents a very low control delay where many vehicles do not stop at all. Therefore, installation of the traffic signal on Dublin Canyon Road would not result in a significant impact related to transportation. 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.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-124 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 Response to T.VINSON 1-4
As noted in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-27, the proposed project would include the construction of a new public access road off Dublin Canyon Road to provide access to the proposed EBRPD parking lot and trailhead. Since the primary purpose of this roadway for the proposed project would include new access to an EBRPD facility and is not intended to alter access to the Vinson Property, the naming convention used in Appendix H of the Draft EIR is Proposed EBRPD Park Driveway; the road’s permanent name will ultimately be selected by the City.

Pages 28 through 33 in Appendix H of the Draft EIR discuss trip generation and distribution related to the proposed project. Estimated trip generation from the proposed project was based on published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition). Specifically, Single-Family Detached housing (ITE Code 210). Published trip rates from land use of Public Park (ITE Code 411) was utilized to obtain projects trips for the proposed EBRPD facilities. As such, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 407 daily vehicle trips including 22 weekday AM peak-hour trips (six inbound and 16 outbound), and 56 weekday PM peakhour trips (33 inbound and 23 outbound). These trip generation rates were then distributed along the project site area based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the study area, and consultation with City staff. Figure 10: Project Trip Assignment in Appendix H of the Draft EIR, and referenced in this comment letter, displays the additional vehicle trips associated with development of the proposed project. This figure of the Proposed EBRPD Park Driveway is not intended to showcase the total amount of vehicle trips estimated as a result of existing conditions in addition to trips from the proposed project and, in turn, is not incorrect. Figure 11: Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Volumes on page 33 in Appendix H of the Draft EIR denotes proposed project trips in addition to the existing traffic volumes. Based on this data, traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project would be considered less than significant based on City standards, as indicated on page 29 in Appendix H of the Draft EIR.

As discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-27, the EBRPD easement providing access to the proposed trailhead would be a new paved access road along a portion of the existing non-exclusive access easement located along the eastern boundary of the Lester property. The proposed project would include 16 parking stalls and four trailer parking stalls for the proposed EBRPD trailhead. The number of parking spaces was developed in coordination with EBRPD. As noted in Draft EIR Section 3.14, Transportation, page 3.14-2, on-street parking along Dublin Canyon Road is prohibited. No on-street parking spaces along Dublin Canyon Road are expected as part of the proposed project. Additionally, a private access gate would be installed to restrict access beyond the EBRPD trailhead.

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 T.VINSON 1-5
The proposed project would increase the area of new impervious surfaces on the project site. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, page 3.9-19, all on-site stormwater

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-125
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 flow would be directed into 10 drainage management areas (DMAs) with 10 associated bioretention areas. The proposed bioretention areas are Low Impact Development techniques, consistent with the County’s NPDES permit and the Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, that allow for stormwater infiltration into the soil and detain stormwater on-site in order to reduce peak flows and prevent erosion and siltation. These bioretention areas would be designed in accordance with all applicable standards with adequate capacity to accommodate stormwater flows at the project site.

All excess runoff from these bioretention areas would be directed into the on-site storm drain system which would direct flow into the existing 12-inch storm drain line beneath Dublin Canyon Road via new proposed 18-inch and 12-inch storm drains. All new proposed storm drainage facilities would be sized and designed with sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project.

Furthermore, as noted in Draft EIR Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, the proposed project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 9.14 which requires construction projects to conform to the C.6 Construction Site Control Requirements in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s MRP (Order No. R2-2022-1108; NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). The C.6 Construction Site Control Requirements mandate construction projects that disturb more than one acre of land to file a Notice of Intent and prepare an erosion/pollution control plan or SWPPP to obtain a Construction Stormwater General Permit. The SWPPP or erosion control plan will identify site specific BMPs that will implement erosion, run-on and runoff, and sediment control measures to prevent the discharge of sediments. These BMPs may include scheduling and timing of grading (soildisturbing) activities, timely revegetation of graded areas, use of hydroseed and hydraulic mulches, and installation of erosion control blankets. Sediment control may include properly sized detention basins, dams, or filters to reduce entry of suspended sediment into the storm drain system and watercourses and installation of construction entrances to prevent tracking of sediment onto adjacent streets. Pollution prevention practices may include designated washout areas or facilities, control of trash and recycled materials, covering of materials stored on-site, and proper location of and maintenance of temporary sanitary facilities. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section

9.14 would ensure that impacts related to erosion and drainage would be less than significant. 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 T.VINSON 1-6
As noted in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-2, average annual rainfall is approximately 16 inches and stormwater runoff readily infiltrates the site’s soils; when field capacity has been reached, gravitational water drains into the seasonal drainages and the creek on-site as shallow groundwater or as surface sheet flow, which then flows into Devaney Creek. As stated in Draft EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality page 3.9-20, the majority of the 130.98-acre site would be left as undeveloped open space and existing drainage would not be modified outside of the approximately 7.4 acres of proposed impervious surfaces. Additionally, as stated on Draft EIR page 3.3-41, the proposed project would include the construction of an 18-inch outfall that will drain into the west side of Devaney Creek and a 24-inch outfall that drains into the east side of Devaney Creek near the vicinity of Dublin Canyon Road. The applicant will need to comply with all State and federal regulations related to construction work that will impact aquatic habitats occurring on the

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-126 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 site. Moreover, water that enters the ground through the proposed bioretention area, described in the Response to T.VINSON 1-5 above, would still have the potential to seep into the nearby Devany Creek.9
Thus, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially alter the watercourse for Devany Creek.

The State Water Resources Control Board was notified of the preparation of the Draft EIR via CEQAnet and was given the opportunity to comment during the State Review Period lasting from November 21, 2025, to January 20, 2026.10 No comments have been received from the State Water Resources Control Board regarding the proposed project. 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 T.VINSON 1-7
Draft EIR Section 3, Executive Summary Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix on pages ES-6 through ES-48 summarizes the impact level determinations made for each environmental topic threshold in the Draft EIR. Where an impact is found to be potentially significant, the associated mitigation measures, if applicable, are included that would reduce the identified environmental impact. As noted on page ES-5, the table is intended to provide a general overview; detailed narrative discussions for each issue areas are included in the corresponding section of this EIR. 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 T.VINSON 1-8
The locations of viewpoints for the visual simulations were confirmed in the field with staff from the City of Pleasanton. Each of the viewpoints represents a publicly accessible location (e.g., a sidewalk or trail, and specifically excluding private property). The simulations were developed using a process that includes specific camera settings to replicate the human experience rather than employing any close-up adjustments or other alterations. The simulation process combines 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) programming, 2D photo-manipulation software, and GIS to accurately render the proposed project as it would be viewed at the street level. Please refer to the Response to A.GELB-2 for a discussion of the proposed project’s less than significant impact related to views of the project site. This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the decisionmakers 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 T.VINSON 1-9
Refer to the Response to T.VINSON 1-4 for an explanation of access to the proposed trailhead and proposed project trip generation associated with the EBRPD trail. The environmental impact 9 United States Geological Survey (USGS). Rivers Contain Groundwater. Website: https://www.usgs.gov/water-scienceschool/science/rivers-contain-groundwater#overview. Accessed February 6, 2026. 10 California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). CEQAnet. Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project.

Website: https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019080461/3. Accessed February 6, 2026.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-127
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 associated with additional trips to and from the EBRPD trail was evaluated in Appendix H of the Draft EIR and discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.14, Transportation, pages 3.14-11 through 3.14-19. Further, the proposed trail is required to be compliant with all operational EBRPD rules, with EBRPD staff member enforcement as needed. 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 T.VINSON 1-10
The proposed project was introduced before the City’s Planning Commission at the December 10, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Members of the public and members of the City’s Planning Commission were provided with an opportunity to comment on and discuss the proposed project.

Additionally, this Final EIR will be presented to the City Council for certification. Please refer to the Response to T.VINSON 3 for a response to the public comment received by Ted Vinson at this meeting. This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the decisionmakers 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 T.VINSON 1-11
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.

Additionally, refer to the Response to T.VINSON 1-9 for a discussion of the EBRPD trail staging and access. This comment is included in the administrative record and will be provided to the decisionmakers 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 T.VINSON 1-12
The EBRPD is identified as a Responsible Agency under CEQA and may rely on the City’s EIR, if certified, in connection with its discretionary approvals, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050(b) and 15096. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and analyzed throughout the Draft EIR, the trail EBRPD dedication and trail are elements of the proposed project and, as such the Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the staging area, trail connection, and related facilities, including impacts to biological resources, aesthetics, transportation, recreation, and other relevant issue areas, and identifies mitigation measures where required. Thus, potential impacts related to the dedication of open space and associated trail connection are included in the analysis of the Draft EIR. No separate CEQA documentation would be required. CEQA does not require separate EIRs to be prepared by each public agency involved in a project when the project is evaluated in a single, comprehensive EIR by the Lead Agency. Nor does CEQA require a Responsible Agency to prepare a separate Draft EIR where the environmental effects of its discretionary actions are adequately addressed in the Lead Agency’s EIR. To the extent that EBRPD undertakes future, discretionary actions related to the regional trail system that are independent of the proposed project or that were not evaluated in this Draft EIR, those actions would be subject to their own CEQA review by EBRPD at the time such actions are proposed and would be subject to all applicable

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-128 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 streamlining and exemptions. The scope of this Draft EIR does not preclude future environmental review of unrelated or expanded EBRPD trail projects. 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 T.VINSON 1-13
The existing single-family homes on the project site at 11021 and 11033 Dublin Canyon Road were evaluated in Draft EIR Section 3.4, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, pages 3.4-11 through 3.4-14. As noted in the Draft EIR, a Historic Architecture Evaluation Report was conducted for these homes and found that they do not meet any of the four criterion to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. Further, these houses are not identified as historic resources within the City’s General Plan nor the NRHP.11,12 Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on historic era built environment resources. 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 T.VINSON 1-14
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 comment responses. As discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 6, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 6-12 and 6-13, if annexation of the project site did not occur, the zoning district established by the County for the five existing parcels on the project site would remain as Agriculture. Under this zoning district, each parcel on the project site is allowed to develop one single-family dwelling unit.13 Additionally, since APN 941-2600-002-6 is over 25 acres in size, the development of a secondary dwelling unit is permitted. Thus, a total of 6 dwelling units could be built by-right on the project site, including the development of three additional dwelling units and one secondary dwelling unit.

As noted in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-27, the proposed project would preserve 117.1 acres of open space on the approximately 130.98-acre project site. Further, as discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 4, Effects Found Not to be Significant, page 4-2, the project site was identified and evaluated as a Housing Opportunity site in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The City’s Housing Element Update proposed updates to the project site zoning that allowed for the development of up to 31 residential units. Thus, development of 28 new single-family residences on the project site would support the City in meeting its RHNA requirements. 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 11 City of Pleasanton. City of Pleasanton General Plan 2005-2025. Conservation and Open Space Element. Website:
https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/assets/our-government/community-development/7.%20ConservationOpenSpace%20Element%20(SA).pdf. Accessed February 2, 2026. 12 National Park Service. National Register Database and Research. Website: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/databaseresearch.htm. Accessed February 2, 2026. 13 Alameda County. Alameda County Zoning Code Chapter 17.06.030. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/alameda_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.06ADI, Accessed February 3, 2026.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-129
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 disposition of significant environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response to T.VINSON 1-15
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 T.VINSON 1-16
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 as it relates to development of the proposed project. For commenter Figures 1 through 4, please see the Response to T.VINSON 1-4. With respect to commenter Figures 5 through 9, please see the Response to T.VINSON 1-5. For commenter Figures 10 and 11, please see the Response to T.VINSON 1-8. Additionally, please see the Response to T.VINSON 1-13 for a discussion related to commenter Figures 12 and 13. 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.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx SECTION 4: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC MEETING VERBAL COMMENTS

4.1 - List of Authors
A list of public individuals that provided verbal comments on the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Draft EIR at the Planning Commission public meeting on December 10, 2025, is presented below. Each verbal commenter has been assigned a code, and a single response has been provided to each speaker. Following this list, a transcript of the video recording of each comment made at the City’s Planning Commission public meeting has been included and is followed by the corresponding response. The full recorded public meeting is also available to watch at the following website link: https://www.youtube.com/live/EswOB9m4hGg.

Speaker Speaker Code
Janet Gardner ........................................................................................................................... GARDNER Sarah Jane Hollister ................................................................................................................. HOLLISTER Sean Ghoddoucy ................................................................................................................. GHODDOUCY Andrew Gelb ............................................................................................................................... A.GELB 2 Robert Devany ....................................................................................................................... R.DEVANY 3 Guy Houston ............................................................................................................................. HOUSTON Diane Lester Kolb ........................................................................................................................... L.KOLB Ted Vinson .............................................................................................................................. T.VINSON 2

4.2 - Responses to Comments

4.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Pleasanton, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080461) for the Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

4.2.2 - Verbal Comment and Responses
The verbal comment transcript and its corresponding response is included in the following pages and follows the same organization as used in the List of Speakers.

Speakers
Janet Gardener (GARDNER)
Thank you. My name is Janet Gardner. I'm a 25-year resident of the Canyon Meadows community and I'm also the current homeowner association president. Our community has expressed the need for traffic control at the intersection of Dublin Canyon and Canyon Meadows on several occasions during the our community's 35 plus year history. Um the traffic flies on Dublin Canyon. It gets thicker as the years continue. So, this is particularly problematic on the westbound blind corner on the

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments Final EIR
4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx approach to the community or part of the old Lincoln Highway Bridge. Therefore, I'm in the strong support of the traffic light to be installed at Canyon Meadows in Dublin Canyon. This is a crucial piece of the Ponderosa proposal without which I would have a hard time lending support. Related, I'm in support of measures to make Dublin Canyon safer for pedestrians. Again, the bridge on the westbound approach to Canyon Meadows has a very narrow shoulder and which cars routinely cut as it's an apex to the bend in the road. This makes a walk to BART a perilous proposition or watching kids try to ride bicycles home from school. So, I had a clarifying question about pedestrian improvements. I believe I read that there is going to be some sidewalks and crosswalks in conjunction with the East Bay Regional Park . . . I also wanted clarification on the construction work is probably going to add a fair bit of traffic. So, I wanted some clarification on the timing for the um traffic signal. Will that be at the tail end of all the construction or ideally at the beginning of the construction?
Response to GARDNER
As noted on page 2-27 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include the construction of a traffic signal at the Dublin Canyon Road and Canyon Meadows intersection. The proposed project would also include construction of 6-foot-wide bike lanes on both sides of Dublin Canyon Road along the project frontage, as well as a 5-foot-wide sidewalk or pathway on Dublin Canyon Road to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) trailhead and staging area.

As stated by the project applicant during the Planning Commission public meeting, the traffic signal would not be constructed first, due to construction vehicle access, economic, and permitting constraints. 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.

Sarah Jane Hollister (HOLLISTER)
Hi. Hello. I'm Sarah Jane Hollister. Welcome. I think I know some of you. I've been a resident of Pleasanton for over 55 years and have been a homeowner and have taught in Pleasanton also for 35 years. And uh when I was ready to downsize and retire, I thought Dublin Canyon Meadows would be the perfect place to retire and to downsize. And it's been wonderful development. But in the course of this time and I was involved in 2017 to 2019 also um traffic has gotten way more than what it was in 2017 and 2019 and um I am very concerned. It's difficult to see that map and to see where the stoplight is. And it the stoplight was important in 2017 and 2019, but it's even important now. Um, a few years ago, as a matter of fact, my immediate neighbor uh there's a curve where that bridge is and it doesn't give you enough visual sight. And of course now um Dublin Canyon Road I call 580 Annex because we have traffic during commute time constantly and you have to hold your breath leaving our complex and before somebody is majorly injured. I am happy to see this, but I'm. On the map, it's difficult to actually see where those stop lights are going to be, where the lefthand turn lane’s going to be. I don't even know where the equestrian buildings are going to be, where the parking for that is. It just seems like we're putting more and more on this road. And um maybe there's better plans than the one that's up here, but I would hope that the Planning Commission would look at all of that. We have 244 homes in Dublin Canyon Meadows. That's a lot of people exiting and entering there every day, as well as the church that's across the road. I think it's very

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx important that the stoplight be number one and not be put off to the end of the project. Also, if we're shutting down the road for construction, we had a tree fall down and for me to get to my residence, I had to go over to Dublin, take Dublin Road over to where the rodeo is and come around to my place that way. That's the only way in and out. And uh we've also limited our access in the preserve area. And with the construction coming up, I am very concerned that the stop lights maybe be the first thing that the road construction be the first thing so that we can accommodate more cars through there safely. So, uh thank you very much. And where can I see a more intricate map? Is it online? . . . So if something has to be modified we could do that in advance? . . . So will we have more time? On this notice it says everything has to be in by January 5th . . . So we will have more time? Thank you very much.

Response to S.HOLLISTER
Pages 4, 5, and 6 in Appendix H of the Draft EIR include more detailed images of turn lanes and roadway striping associated with the proposed project. Additionally, an image of the location of the proposed traffic signal is displayed on Exhibit 2-7b on page 2-31 of the Draft EIR. Note that the Exhibit is mislabeled and is corrected in this FEIR. See Section 5, Errata, for the corrected Exhibit.

Further, as noted by City staff during the Planning Commission public meeting, the complete proposed project site plans are available for viewing upon request.

Also note that the comment period for the proposed project’s Draft EIR was extended from January 5, 2026, to January 20th, 2026. Further, comments on the design of the proposed project can be given during the Planning Commission and City Council Hearings. 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.

Sean Ghoddoucy (GHODDOUCY)
Hi. Uh, my name is Sean Ghoddoucy. I've been a resident of, uh, Crosby Drive in Pleasanton, which is the in direct view of this project for 20 plus years. Um, I look at that beautiful green hill every day for hours. That's where, uh, our family room is. That's where our kitchen is. That's where we our bedroom windows are. And this is very concerning to me. I have um a handful of questions, not necessarily comments. Can I just read them and then you guys could someone could answer them whenever they can. Is that all right? . . . questions uh could turn into concerns if um the answers are no . . . Sounds good. Um, is there going to be any exceptions to the uh grading and cut and fill guidelines on this project? That's question one. Will there be uh required um clean energy solar panels required to limit the amount of impact on the grid on these homes? Are there any plans to add mature trees on the uh south edge of this project to uh limit the eyesore that I'll be staring at? . . . Add mature trees to uh reduce the uh you know the ugliness of a of a project like this. Will there be an additional fire road added? Um who will maintain it? Um will there be an HOA? I'm assuming because it's gated there will be an HOA. And what is covered on that HOA for maintaining the um um state of that project. Will there be a low income 55 older something like that which Pleasanton needs um as part of this project? Um and uh alongside the traffic impact on on uh eastbound, um that that road is extremely dangerous from 3 to 3 to 6:00 p.m. If you guys have ever been there, um I suggest you find a different time to be there. Um what's the average square foot of the homes? I'm sure it's in the plans. And what is the asking price? Um, and you guys had you guys addressed visual

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments Final EIR
4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx uh impact of the home from the freeway. I would like to know about the visual impact from Crosby Drive, which is right above it, staring directly at it. That's it. Okay.

Response to GHODDUCY
Refer to the Response to A.GELB 1-1 and the Response to A.GELB 1-2 for a discussion of the analysis of aesthetic impacts related to scenic views performed in the Draft EIR, as well as a description of grading activities associated with the proposed project. As stated in Draft EIR Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, page 3.7-13, the proposed project would comply with the requirement to include a solar photovoltaic system that meets the power needs of the new buildings at the time of construction. 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.

Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-33 in states that the new streets, gated entryway, and landscaped streetscape, as well as some open space areas, would be privately maintained within the community via the establishment of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The Draft EIR then states that a 20 to 21-foot wide Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roadway would be constructed to connect Dublin Canyon Road with the Oak Hill Congregational Church driveway connection, which would be accessible by fire protection personnel.

The proposed project would not include the construction of deed-restricted affordable or 55+ housing. 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 economic considerations of the proposed project. Please also refer to the Response to ANONYMOUS-2 above for an explanation of VMT compared to LOS as required under CEQA. This response also discusses how traffic impacts related to the proposed project would be less than significant. 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.

Andrew Gelb (A.GELB-2)
Good evening. My I'm Andrew Gellb and I live at 9671 Crosby Drive, which is one of the neighboring locations where the damage will be most obvious. I sent you a photo of the hillside view. Uh believe it or not, some have called that the best view in town. people regularly drive up and walk and take pictures and portraits there. Uh it is not uh something minor that can be ignored. The Draft EIR says the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Uh that's utter nonsense. And the Draft EIR, I have to say, loses credibility instantly with that patently false assertion. Calling the project hidden doesn't make it hidden. Uh, this project runs rough shot over Pleasanton's hillside regulations that preserve significant features of a hill area in essentially their natural state and minimize grading and fill consistent with retention of the natural character of the hills. City staff's original report on this project called out grading slopes that are too steep to be graded. Placing homes and roads were not allowed on slopes, substantial grading, lack of conformance to measure PP. I'm very curious how they got around that. And allowing homes in designated open space. Now, I implore you to come in person, view the site from Crosby Drive and see what will happen if restrictions are not implemented. You need to see the damage you're being

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx asked to approve. This is desecration . . . Okay. Um, you need to see the damage you're being asked to approve. Uh, this is desecration. Uh, back in 2019, Herb Ritter, a member of this commission, came to see for himself, which I'm asking you to do. He then made it clear during that 2019 meeting that the developer must try harder to minimize the visual blight. Some of these points were made at that hearing. If the number of houses won't be reduced, and they should be, they should be less of an eyesore. They should be single-story. The houses, roads, retaining walls should have earthtone colors that blend into the hillside. Retaining walls should be planted and terraced and not so clearly scar the hillsides. And the recent drawings that they have placed in the file show that they are so high and so big, but that's because they have to do that because they can't otherwise flatten the hills to make their paths. Mr. Mr. Ritter made it clear that tall and yes, mature trees, the size of the heritage trees that are going to be removed must be planted around the development for visual screening. There are power poles and power lines on the property that city staff has told me will be or should be removed and undergrounded. There's also a plan to put pipes down the fire road from Crosby Drive to Dublin Canyon Road. Well, if that's the case, then the developer or the city has to repave that road and maintain it and the wooden fence along it. And if driveway to my house uh is cut open for those pipes, that's going to have to be replaced. Uh any East Bay Regional Park walkways and parking lot must be secured and monitored for fire safety. That hillside is an absolute tinder box in the summer. Fire safety measures must be enforced. Now I know under current state law and the housing element, this project won't be rejected in its entirety. But you have to understand despite the fact that they have decreased the number, it is still too much. Too many houses, too much grading and flattening of those hillsides, and there is much that can be done. I've mentioned a few things to help mitigate it. Now, Ponderosa told us at the very first time we met with them, that we are not like other developers. We care about and listen to and work with impacted neighbors. And those are quotes, by the way. I was there and took notes. But I have to tell you, sadly, nothing of the sort has taken place. There has been no communication, no collaboration, nothing from Ponderosa. They know we're there. They can say visually it's unimportant. It is important to some of us. So, I call upon Ponderosa. I'm sure they're not bad people, but to heed their own promises, work with your neighbors to make this project as palatable as possible. You promised and you failed. And I call upon the city to insist that they do so and create an imposed condition so that their valuable rights and interests of current Pleasanton restaurant residents are not completely ignored. Insist the developer try harder than it has to the extent that is tried at all to minimize the blight they intend to bring to Pleasanton and to not ignore what already has been requested by the city. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry I went over my three minutes. They've had six years . . .

Response to A.GELB 2
Please refer to Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. This Master Response provides a response to comments that express general comments on the proposed project or the environmental analysis.

Please also refer to the Response to A. GELB 1-1 through the Response to A. GELB 1-6 for a discussion of aesthetic impacts related to development of the proposed project, including the City’s ridgeline. As stated by the project applicant at the Planning Commission public meeting, the proposed project development has been designed to fit into the allowable envelope to meet Measures PP and QQ. This is also discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description at pages 2-19 and 2-20.

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments Final EIR
4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx The EBRPD would be responsible for maintenance of the proposed trailhead and trail staging area.

Additionally, Draft EIR Section 3.16, Wildfire, page 3.16-12 notes that the proposed project would be adequately served by fire protection services and would be constructed in compliance with the California Fire Code, as well as the California Building Code. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the spread of 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.

Robert Devany (R.DEVANY 3)
Good evening. Thank you for uh making time for us tonight. Um my name is Robert Devany. Um my family owns the 160-acre parcel that's immediately west of the you see the yellow box there. So, that that westernmost line uh is the start of our property and it goes west about 1,200 ft and uh comprises uh uh 100 and we basically our family so we are the Devany of Devany Canyon. This is not Hidden Canyon. This is Devany Canyon. That's a recognized geographic place name. Devany Creek flows through it. That was that was shown in the EIR. But uh regardless, um much of this land of the project itself was owned by my family. Um the lands were purchased in uh January of 1866. And so we've had continuous ownership of the the one parcel to the west since then. Um, so we have historically for a very long period of time used a good the central portion of the project site basically more or less following that road off of Dublin Canyon Road to the east through and it basically bisects through where where the housing uh the central housing area is and it crosses into what is committed to the East Bay Regional Parks in the green area. Um we use that road as the sole access to our property. Okay. And um we pulled in a subject matter expert. We reviewed the records that we have and the and the records indicate that that while we don't have a recorded easement, we have established the rights for that easement through California law. Okay. Um, so this road is it it's shown in several of the exhibits um in the DEIR. Um, Exhibit 2-3 aerial shows portions of it. Exhibit 2- 6 uh shows portions of it, although it inaccurately shows that that road ends in the green area before it reaches um the corner just below that residential house. Uh that's the property owned by the Stalys and then it crosses into our land right there. So that is the way that we maintain our cattle operation. This land is protected under the Williamson act and uh we uh have no structures there, but we keep cattle there uh through a tenant process. Okay. So, when we reviewed the DEIR, we we didn't see any um reference to the existence of this road, to the use of this road and the fact that that this is a key access point um to our property. Okay. So we think that that is a deficiency that this potentially has significant impacts. Certainly, to us it would have sig very significant impacts, but we think broad more broadly in the EIR context it does and um you know there there's several sections u the uh page 2-20 uh page 3.10-11 it does not dis discuss the compatibility with surrounding uses that's clearly impact incompatible with the surrounding uses our use. Um and um there there's numerous other things that there will be transportation impacts from our use of our easement within the project. Right? We have uh farm vehicles, trucks with movement of cattle seasonally, things like that. So that will have impacts on this project. Um, and uh, all of this needs to be carried into the cumulative impacts, the project alternative sections. There's just no coverage at all for any of this. And we're really surprised because we raised this issue back in 2019 in this room. And uh, it was apparently ignored or misunderstood or something. But in part, that's why we we brought in a subject matter expert to look at this carefully. This is a real thing, we think. So um so you know we

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx think that it it does pose significant impacts and to satisfy the requirements of CEQA uh this needs to be resolved because uh I don't think this is an approvable EIR as it stands. Thank you.

Response to R.DEVANY 3
Please refer to the responses to R. DEVANY 1 and R. DEVANY 2 in Section 3, Responses to Written Comments, in this document. These letters discuss access to the parcel (APN 941-2600-1-3) adjacent to the project site, along with impacts related to parcel access and grazing. Further, as stated by the project applicant, access would be maintained for APN 941-2600-1-3 and development of the proposed project would still allow for grazing uses on the project site and adjacent parcel. 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
Guy Houston (HOUSTON)
Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Guy Houston, 7885 and 7815 Canyon Meadow. Um, I'm a a newcomer in the Canyon Meadow community. Um, before that I was actually work very closely with the uh Greek Orthodox Church on their project which will be coming in the future. Um, I am here to say that I think this is environmentally this is a home run for the city of Pleasanton. You've got a lot of open space that's going to be set aside. You have a regional working with East Bay Regional Parks.

You have a regional recreation facility. Uh, and the the part of this that has been spoken by some of the others from Canyon Meadow. Uh, the big one for me is the traffic improvements um on on uh Dublin Canyon Road. Uh it is dangerous. It's been dangerous. I've been around long enough where there's been accidents out there uh and there's a lot more close calls uh than we'd like care to think about. Uh but uh this is a great improvement and from what I understand there is no money in the city of Pleasanton uh for these improvements, particularly for the stoplight. So it's a huge benefit and win for the city of Pleasanton in in all three of those areas. Uh, and I, you know, certainly very interested in this process and going forward and to see this to completion. I might also add that, um, people in the preserve, I've been around long enough to know that, uh, people said the same things about them back when those houses were built. Um, and so, uh, this is just part of the process. Uh, but this is a huge win for the city of Pleasanton and the citizens. Um, and staff's done a great job up to this point in time. It's just taken too long. 12 years. We got to get this done. and I appreciate your time.

Response to HOUSTON
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.

Diane Lester Kolb (L.KOLB)
Hi, I'm Diane Lester Kolb. Uh my family's been out there for at least uh 73 years. I was I got there at a year of age one year. Um, this project to me means a lot to my family. My mother has passed, so she has not been able to see the finish of it. Um, everything that we have working with Ponderosa with the park district, the open space, keeping the wildlife there, the signal for our our neighbors to be

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments Final EIR
4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx safe. I mean, we're not being selfish saying we want these houses. We looking out for the neighborhood. We're looking out for Pleasanton. It's a it's a great plan that Ponderosa has done and worked with us even though it's taken 11 years. Um I don't see any negativity in it myself. Uh that stoplight was going to save some lives because my son did get an accident at that church entrance years ago with my mother. So um we know what an accident is like on on that section. So that stoplight is definitely going to help. The traffic it is busy, but I think with the light coming in may change the whole deal that people might want to stay on that damn freeway instead of taking the scenic ride. Um, and because they people that ride their bicycles are in danger and even coming in and out of my driveway and especially coming in my driveway. I've almost been hit several times for people that will not slow down. go across behind me and go around the ridge and I just hold my breath every time that they don't kill me. So this project to me I'm hoping you guys can see the benefit of it because it's not just for my family but it's for Pleasanton as well and for our neighbors and for our wildlife. Thank you.

Response to L.KOLB
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
Ted Vinson (T.VINSON 2)
Hello, I'm Ted Vinson. Uh I at 11029 Dublin Canyon Road. I'm actually not on the road. I'm a mile and a half uh up in Devany Canyon at the head of Deanny Canyon on property that my family has had for 70 years. We're kind of the newcomers in the area because you had Bob Devany here. Uh you had Diane Lester which is Teraa uh actually and the Cronins aren't represented. That's another family.

They've been around for about 150 years. East Bay Regional Park came in I don't know 30 years ago, 40 years ago. I kind of view them as the newcomers. Uh, first I would like to thank uh whoever moved the parking and staging area out of the meadow, the middle of the meadow and moved it back to a location where the meadow has now been uh well a good start for its preservation. The next major consideration in terms of preserving the meadow, which is certainly the thrust of my presentation, uh is how the um well park users will get from that staging and parking area to the entrance to the trail. Uh the trail that goes up to Pleasanton Ridge, the north end of Pleasanton Ridge Park. Uh that trail has actually been constructed. It is already built and over the past month or so uh I have already experienced a at least and personally 20 bikers that have been on my driveway uh who basically trespassed into the park went right by the signs and then were encouraged by the trail contractor and even the trail supervisor with East Bay Regional Park to come down the trail after they had trespassed. The Alameda County Sheriff's Department has been up there to deal try to deal with the issue. You can't really deal with it when a bicyclist comes up. I've confronted literally a dozen of them. And even the fact that they trespass, it doesn't seem to matter. And consequently, um, I bring that up as a major issue in terms of getting the park users from that parking lot over to the entrance and ensuring that they don't uh, basically practice uh, you know, very bad uh, uh, well, user manners. Uh, a few other issues and I'm happy to work with anyone. And I don't know if we have any representatives here from East Bay Regional Park, but I would be happy to work with them.

I am in contact with the trail supervisor. Uh and hopefully uh that will be something in the future

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx that will not lead to the uh issues that I just pointed out. Uh beyond that, I believe that the uh East Bay Regional Park/Vinson driveway because we share the driveway and in fact I've been on the driveway for 70 years. They are the newcomers. Uh that that should be separate from the driveway and access to the parking area. I believe the gates that are shown in the uh uh draft environmental report should be moved to Dublin Canyon Road. Uh and again that those driveways be kept separate.

Um beyond that the effect of the hydrology and the change in hydrology associated with the development uh is not really clear to me. Uh, and I'm a little bit concerned about it because what was done at the preserve and approved by the city, you own it now, is to dump the storm water, literally dump the storm water from the preserve at two locations near Dublin Canyon Road into just the old drainages. And with the result, when you pave an area, it's just basic hydrologic principles.

When you pave an area, you actually get a shorter uh retention and you get a higher peak in terms of the flow. And at the two locations I'm referring to, it absolutely blows out the culverts in the crossing there. I would say once every three or four years. I mean, Diane can support me on this. I don't know why it was ever approved. And consequently, I am concerned when I read uh in the report if I can find the wording but basically says that uh there's not going to be oh . . . but it says that all water uh is controlled uh and does that which is just a statement.

And it says all water is controlled. And of course I can read the size of the of the piping and the storm water system etcetera. But in a way I kind of don't believe it. The flooding on Dublin Canyon Road and there's others here that can substantiate this from Canyon Meadows, Diane, and Canyon Creek.

The flooding is so severe on Dublin Canyon Road that that when the cars drive through it, they create a rooster tail like you're out water skiing. It's unbelievable . . .Okay. Well one of the thing I would say is that uh when you divert water uh you actually are controlled by the State Water Resources Control Board. So, in this area after you have diverted the water I do wonder is the control board, have they been notified because they're concerned about my diversion of water and therefore, I have to believe they would be concerned about this diversion of water. All right. These are my points and I will have a written report that I'll submit. Thank you very much.

Response to T.VINSON2
Refer to the Response to T. VINSON 1-4 and the Response to T. VINSON 1-9 in Section 3, Responses to Written Comments, in this document for a discussion of the siting and access of the proposed EBRPD parking lot and trailhead. As stated by the project applicant at the Planning Commission public meeting for the proposed project, an official connection to the EBRPD trail is proposed on the project site which would facilitate trail connections outside of private property. Additionally, a private access gate would be installed to restrict access beyond the EBRPD trailhead.

Please also refer to the Response to T. VINSON 1-5 and the Response to T. VINSON 1-6 in Section 3, Responses to Written Comments, in this document for an explanation of hydrologic impacts related to development of the proposed project. 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.