SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

6. MS Comment: The analysis of the projects compliance with the Pleasanton Climate Action Plan (CAP) is flawed and inadequate. The DSEIR anticipates future,yet to be implemented state policies from AB=32 to allow Pleasanton to meet its GHG emissions reductions targets as outlined in the CAP. Relying on the potential future reductions is speculative at best and cannot be accurately quantified. The DSEIR should evaluate the forecasted GHG emissions from this project against a baseline of the existing zoning as well as the DSEIR project alternatives. This would provide an accurate impact of the project related to achieving the emissions reductions targets of the CAP. Response: The analysis of GHG emissions in Section 4.E, Other Topics, of the Draft SEIR is consistent in its assumption of future emissions with the City's Climate Action Plan and industry standards. First,the calculation of GHG emissions assumed an electrical CO2 intensity factor of 488 pounds per Megawatt-hour which was based on a future year of 2020 and an increase in the renewable energy portfolio requirement using Pacific Gas &Electric's year 2008 CO2 intensity factor of 641.35 pounds per Megawatt-hour. Subsequent to release of the Draft SEIR, in November of 2015, PG&E published its latest rolling 5-year average electrical CO2 intensity factor(through 2013),which is 457 pounds per Megawatt-hour. Consequently,PG&E has already attained CO2 intensity reduction beyond those assumed in the analysis of the Draft SEIR for 2020, even given the drought conditions that existed during this period (and associated effects on hydroelectric power generation). Consequently,the estimates of electrical-related GHG emissions are not speculative and indeed are somewhat overly conservative. Secondly,the estimate of future vehicle-related emissions of the Draft SEIR utilizes the Ca1EEMod model developed under the direction of the California Air Pollution Control Association and assumes vehicle fleet emissions enhancements predicted by the California Air Resources Board.These are the same emission factors applied in the development of the city's Climate Action Plan. Further,the methodology used in the Draft SEIR to estimate GHG emissions is consistent with that recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in its most recent(2012)CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Master Response to Comments About the Timing and Funding of Traffic Mitigation Measures(Reproduced from March, 2016 Final SEIR) Several comments on the Draft SEIR requested further information about the timing and funding of mitigation measures(Mitigation Measures 4.D-la,4.D-lb,4.D-lc, 4.D-1d,4.D-2,4.D-3, and 4.D-4)that include improvements to traffic and transportation systems in the area of the proposed EDZ. These system improvements, as identified in the Draft SEIR, include new through and turn lanes along Stoneridge Drive and Johnson Drive and an expanded I-680 northbound on-ramp.As individual property owners and/or project developers submit applications for projects within the EDZ area,the financial responsibility for these improvements will be identified in individual Development Agreements that the City may establish with the property owners and/or project developers, as determined necessary. The Development Agreements will specify future investments to be made by the owner and/or applicant in exchange for the right to develop a project. Because some of the freeway- related improvements require Caltrans(State)approval,the City will work closely with Caltrans to ensure the improvements are adequately designed and progress expeditiously through the approval process.