My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
03
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
021522
>
03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2022 9:34:11 AM
Creation date
2/10/2022 9:27:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
206
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
City of Pleasanton <br />Pleasanton Climate Action Plan 2.0 <br />While the CAP 2.0 could result in construction -related impacts related to toxic air contaminants and <br />exposure to sensitive receptors, CAP 2.0 projects or actions would be reviewed for consistency with <br />BAAQMD air quality regulations and other applicable local, State, and federal regulations once <br />project details and locations are known to ensure compliance. Thus, construction associated with <br />implementation of the CAP 2.0 would not result in substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants <br />and exposure to sensitive receptors. No operational toxic air contaminant emissions are anticipated <br />with implementation of the CAP 2.0 strategies and actions. Therefore, the CAP 2.0 would have a <br />less -than -significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants. <br />d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a <br />substantial number of people? <br />The CARB 2005 Air Quality Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective identifies land uses <br />associated with odor complaints which include: sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling <br />facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, auto body shops, <br />coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock <br />operations.30 None of the CAP 2.0 strategies and actions involve new or expanded land uses that <br />would generate odors, such as those listed above. Therefore, the CAP 2.0 would not facilitate <br />development that could create adverse odors, and there would be no impact related to odors <br />exposure. <br />Cumulative Impacts <br />The cumulative projects scenario is overall General Plan buildout for Pleasanton in 2025 plus <br />Pleasanton population projections through 2045. The CAP 2.0 projects, in combination with other <br />cumulative projects anticipated under Pleasanton General Plan buildout, could exceed applicable <br />BAAQMD thresholds or be inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. However, implementation of <br />the CAP 2.0 would have a IP.s.s-than-signifirant contribution related to potential cumulative air <br />quality impacts within the air basin and on sensitive receptors within Pleasanton, given that the CAP <br />2.0 would result in community -wide reduction of GHG emissions, energy use, single -occupancy <br />vehicle travel, and waste generation. As such, implementation of the CAP 2.0 would not result in <br />adverse impacts related to contribution of criteria pollutants to the air basin and exposure of <br />sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants. Therefore, implementation of the CAP 2.0 would result <br />in a less -than -significant cumulative impact related to air quality. <br />30 California Air Resources Control Board (CARB). 2005. Air quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available: <br /><https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf>. Accessed October 8, 2021. <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.