Reso PC22-08 0085 PC Reso Recommending CEQA

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Harbor View Project PAGE 9 OF 48 ESA / 170951 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2022 ATTY/RESO.0085/PC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA – EXHIBIT A REV: 11-02-2022 VR potential for unstable soils to adversely affect proposed Revised Project development is minimized. This impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-17 to 4.5-18; FEIR, p. 2-12.) Impact GEO-4: The Project would not be located on expansive or corrosive soils creating substantial risks to life or property. Findings Regarding Impact GEO-4: The Revised Project would adhere to the geotechnical investigation prepared for the Revised Project site, as discussed for Impact GEO-3, above, which also addresses recommendations to address potential damage from expansive and corrosive soils Adherence to the final engineering and design recommendations in the geotechnical investigation would reduce potential impacts. This impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-18; FEIR, p. 2-12.) Impact GEO-1.CU: The Project, combined with cumulative development in the Project vicinity and citywide, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to geology, soils or seismicity. Findings Regarding Impact GEO-1.CU: All future development would be subject to the state and local laws in place to ensure that new developments are constructed in accordance with the CBC and are structurally sound. Specifically, all future developments would be required to undergo a geotechnical investigation and submit a geotechnical report prior to construction, which would inform the geotechnical design of all structures to ensure they are able to withstand any impacts from seismic hazards, such as strong ground shaking and liquefaction. Compliance with all applicable state and local laws would ensure that potential impacts of the Revised Project are minimized. Therefore, impacts related to seismic hazards would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-16; FEIR, p. 2-12.) 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impact GHG-2: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an appropriate regulatory agency adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Findings Regarding Impact GHG-2: The Revised Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted with the intent to reduce GHG emissions. GHG emissions generated would be less than the BAAQMD’s thresholds with adherence to a mitigation measure to implement a transportation demand management (TDM) plan (FEIR Table 2-3 on FEIR p. 2-12. See Impact GHG-1, below.). Therefore, it would not conflict AB 32 or SB 32 goals or impair attainment of GHG reduction goals established pursuant to AB 32 in the Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Revised Project would also comply with the Green Building Ordinance and would be consistent with the control measures to reduce emissions of GHGs applicable to the Revised Project that are outlined in the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (see Impact AIR-4). Taken together, development of the Revised Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted with the intent to reduce GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-23 to 4.6-24; FEIR, p. 2-12 to 2-14.)