My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
050217
>
18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2017 4:14:35 PM
Creation date
4/27/2017 10:20:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/2/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18
Document Relationships
18 ATTACHMENT 08
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2017\050217
18 ATTACHMENT 09
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2017\050217
18 ATTACHMENT 12
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2017\050217
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ponderosa Homes at 6900 Valley Trails Drive <br /> Initial Study and Negative Declaration <br /> Table 2: Screening Data for Highways and Major Roadways within 1,000 Feet <br /> 600 feet South of W. Las 750 feet East of 1-680 <br /> Positas Blvd. <br /> Risk Characteristic Base Fraction of Time Base Fraction of Time <br /> (units) at Home (73%) at Home (73%) <br /> PM2.5 annual 0.014 0.010 0.105 0.077 <br /> average (pg/m3) <br /> Cancer Risk (per 0.81 0.59 18.236 13.312 <br /> million) <br /> Source: BAAQMD, City of Pleasanton. <br /> Although the project would not generate significant air quality impacts, its <br /> location adjacent to the roadway could expose sensitive receptors to <br /> potential pollutant concentrations. The project would be conditioned such <br /> that the applicant would be required to perform a site-specific health risk <br /> assessment/air quality analysis focusing on pollution from 1-680, with any <br /> recommendations from the report to reduce health risks incorporated into <br /> the building plans for the project. As a result, the potential impact would be <br /> less than significant. <br /> c) The project is not anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a <br /> substantial number of people. Therefore, this impact would be a less than <br /> significant. <br /> 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES <br /> Less Than <br /> Significant <br /> Potentially Impact With Less Than <br /> Significant Mitigation Significant No <br /> Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact <br /> Would the project: <br /> a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly X <br /> or through habitat modifications, on any species <br /> identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special <br /> status species in local or regional plans, policies, or <br /> regulations, or by the California Department of Fish <br /> and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? <br /> II <br /> 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.