Laserfiche WebLink
Environmental Checklist <br />Air Quality <br /> <br />Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration 33 <br />b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for <br />which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air <br />quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone <br />precursors)? <br />The CAP 2.0 would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote sustainable <br />infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the CAP 2.0 would not result <br />in impacts related to criteria pollutants. However, implementation of the following CAP 2.0 actions <br />may promote construction activities that would temporarily generate criteria pollutants during the <br />construction phase. <br />CAP 2.0 Action P2 promotes electrification of existing buildings, Action P5 would expand EV charging <br />stations and supporting infrastructure throughout Pleasanton, and Actions S2 and S3 encourage <br />energy efficiency upgrades and retrofits to existing buildings and municipal facilities. CAP 2.0 Action <br />P15 would incentivize water efficiency retrofits to existing buildings and landscaped areas, and <br />Action S8 seeks to increase green stormwater infrastructure within the City, including low-impact <br />development (LID) strategies such as bioswales, rain catchment basins, and green roofs. <br />Additionally, CAP 2.0 Action P13 would involve the planting of new trees throughout the City, and <br />Action S9 may include controlled burns in wildland areas to prevent wildfire, which could <br />temporarily generate criteria pollutants such as PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-related air quality <br />impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from <br />heavy construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to reactive organic gases (ROG) that <br />would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural coatings. However, <br />implementation of CAP 2.0 actions would not include large-scale construction within Pleasanton and <br />would involve temporary and short-term criteria pollutant emissions. As such, CAP 2.0 would result <br />in low-level criteria pollutant emissions and negligible impacts to air quality. CAP 2.0 projects or <br />actions would also be reviewed for consistency with BAAQMD air quality regulations and other <br />applicable local, State, and federal regulations once project details and locations are known. Thus, <br />the construction required for implementation of the CAP 2.0 would result in a less-than-significant <br />impact related to net increase of criteria pollutants. <br />With respect to operational emissions, many of the CAP 2.0 actions would have the secondary <br />benefit of reducing criteria pollutant emissions, such as strategies aiming to increase building energy <br />efficiency, promote EVs, reduce on-road gasoline fuel use, and reduce VMT. Implementation of CAP <br />2.0 would be beneficial by helping Pleasanton meet applicable air quality plan goals. In addition, <br />future CAP 2.0 projects would be required to comply with local, regional, and State air quality <br />regulations. Therefore, the CAP 2.0 would result in a less-than-significant impact related to criteria <br />pollutant emissions. <br />c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? <br />Implementation of the CAP 2.0 strategies and actions as described under Response 3b., above, <br />promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that may result in temporary construction <br />activities. Construction-related air quality impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM 10 <br />and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in <br />addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural <br />coatings. However, implementation of CAP 2.0 strategies and actions would not include large-scale <br />construction, and construction-related emissions would be temporary. As such, implementation of <br />the CAP 2.0 would result in low-level toxic air contaminant emissions associated with construction.