SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

2. MS Comment: The Final SEIR's proposed mitigation measures 4.B-4, which requires a health risk assessment only if a new sensitive residential use is proposed within the EDZ area, is inadequate. The City should evaluate potential health risks to existing sensitive receptors in the Val Vista neighborhood now, both individually and cumulatively,from exposure to diesel particulates (DPM) not just from direct project operations, but from diesel vehicle traffic traveling to and from the project site. If there is an existing ambient cancer risk that exceeds applicable thresholds, then the project's cumulative health risk is likely to be significant and require mitigation. Without this analysis, the SEIR's analysis of health impacts is inadequate under CEQA. Response: Regarding the local effects of toxic air contaminants such as diesel particulate matter(DPM)and respirable particulate matter(PM2.5),as discussed under Impact 4.B-4 in Section 4.B,Air Quality,of the Draft SEIR,the analysis found that effects would be less than significant(with mitigation required only should a sensitive use such as senior housing be proposed within the Zone). For example,the distance between the area of the proposed Zone and the Val Vista neighborhood(approximately 1,000 feet for locations within the Zone except that of the existing Fed Ex facility)would preclude new uses within the Zone from generating significant localized air quality impacts to this neighborhood. The 2005 California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook,referenced in Section 4.B,Air Quality of the Draft SEIR,uses 1,000 feet as the screening distance from certain pollutant-generating uses because risks to local uses are much lower beyond this distance; 1,000 feet is therefore the recommended distance for local agencies to consider when evaluating whether sensitive land uses such as residences should be permitted. 3. MS Comment: The Final SEIR's responses to my and others submitted comments on traffic impacts are inadequate and the SEIR fails to adequately disclose all potentially significant traffic impacts. I have attached my comments to the SEIR for your convenience, but I trust you have already read them in your review of the SEIR. (Please note the comments referred to and responses were included in the Final SEIR published March,2016. The text below replicates those responses. The Master Response to Comments About the Timing and Funding of Traffic Mitigation Measures initially presented in the Final SEIR is also reproduced at the end of this document in full.) 1. Mitigation Measure 4.D-lc: Will the project applicant(s)fund these improvements in full at the time of project construction?If the city plans on funding these improvements,provide a proforma analysis of the costs and benefits to Pleasanton taxpayers for funding the incentives. Response: The commenter may refer to the Master Response to Comments About the Timing and Funding of Traffic Mitigation Measures,which addresses how traffic mitigations will be paid for, apportioned,and timed. 2. Mitigation Measure 4.D-Id: Will the project applicant(s)fund these improvements in full at the tune of project construction? The removal of wetlands in the Alamo Canal may result in significant delays to obtain necessary permits. Since this mitigation will be under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, how will the city manage this process to ensure timely completion? Will this mitigation measure be constructed prior to construction of the EDZ?If the city plans on funding these improvements,provide a pro- forma analysis of the costs and benefits to Pleasanton taxpayers for funding the incentives.