Reso PC22-08 0085 PC Reso Recommending CEQA

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Harbor View Project PAGE 15 OF 48 ESA / 170951 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2022 ATTY/RESO.0085/PC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA – EXHIBIT A REV: 11-02-2022 VR Impact NOI-5: Operation of the Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels without the Project. Findings Regarding Impact NOI-5: The Revised Project would not introduce any permanent new sources of significant groundborne vibration, nor would it place sensitive uses adjacent to existing sources of vibration. This impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-16; FEIR, p. 2-16.) Impact NOI-1.CU: Traffic generated by development of the Project, in combination with traffic from cumulative development in the Project vicinity and citywide, including past, present, existing, approved, pending and reasonably foreseeable future development; and construction and operational noise levels in combination with traffic from cumulative development would not contribute considerably to cumulative noise impacts. Findings Regarding Impact NOI-1.CU: DEIR Table 4.10-4 shows that while the increase in peak hour traffic noise between Existing and Cumulative Plus Project (2040) scenario would exceed 5 dBA at some roadway segments, the Project’s contribution to cumulative noise would be less than 3 dBA and hence would not be a cumulatively considerable contribution. Moreover, the Revised Project would generate fewer peak-hour vehicle trips (33 percent fewer AM trips and PM trips), thus further reducing its contribution to the 2040 cumulative roadway noise levels at any sensitive land uses in and around the Project vicinity, and the impact would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 4.10-15 to 4.10-17; FEIR p. 2-16. 4.11 Population, Housing and Employment Impact POP-1: The proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Findings Regarding Impact POP-1: The Revised Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth, and some portion of the employment growth that would result from the Project was anticipated in City’s General Plan maximum growth assumptions. Based on the analysis in the DEIR, less than 6.7 percent growth in citywide employment would occur with the Project, as the Revised Project is smaller than analyzed in the Draft EIR (3,061 employees compared to 4,579 employees). Further, while the Revised Project would increase employee population on the site, the growth would not be substantial. As discussed in this impact in the DEIR, although there would be more growth on the Project site than envisioned by the General Plan – in terms of land uses allowed by the existing General Plan designations, as well as the 2030 buildout growth underlying the General Plan – that additional growth increase would not require or involve the extension of existing infrastructure into areas not previously anticipated for growth in the City. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 4.11-8 to 4.11-9; FEIR p. 2-16.) Impact POP-1.CU: The Project, combined with cumulative development in the Project vicinity and citywide, would not result in a significant effect to population, housing, and employment. Findings Regarding Impact POP.1.CU: The difference in citywide and countywide employment growth with and without the Revised Project would be less than that identified in the