Laserfiche WebLink
City of Pleasanton <br />Pleasanton Climate Action Plan 2.0 <br /> <br />34 <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 less-than-significant 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 /> <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.