My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
3_Exhibit C
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2023
>
02-22
>
3_Exhibit C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 1:30:15 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 1:15:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/22/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
3
(Message)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2023\02-22
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.
/
1857
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City of Pleasanton—Stoneridge Mall Residential Project <br />Section 15183 Checklist/15164 Addendum CEQA Checklist <br /> <br /> <br />FirstCarbon Solutions 93 <br />Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480017/Consistency Checklist/21480017 Stoneridge Mall Residential Project Checklist <br />Addendum_Updated.docx <br />Therefore, the proposed project’s electricity provider meets the State’s current objective of 33 <br />percent. The electricity provider would also be required to meet the State’s future objective of 60 <br />percent of in-State electricity sales being generated from renewable energy sources by 2030. As a <br />result, it is expected that the proposed project would utilize electricity that are generated with <br />increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. <br />As discussed above, energy consumption associated with development consistent with the proposed <br />project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, consistent with the energy considerations <br />contained in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. This impact would be less than significant. <br />b) Conflict with Energy Plan <br />Prior EIR Conclusions <br />The Prior EIR determined that development would be consistent with the City’s then-proposed CAP <br />and General Plan policies relating to energy efficiency. <br />Analysis of Proposed Project <br />As discussed above and as in Section VIII Greenhouse Gases, the proposed project would be required <br />to comply with the CBC, CALGreen codes, and City’s CAP 2.0, which would ensure that proposed <br />project would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy <br />efficiency. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. <br />Mitigation Measures <br />None required. <br />Conclusion <br />The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than identified in the Prior <br />EIR.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.