Reso23-02 0009 PC Reso Adopt CEQA

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Focused General Plan Update 12 Final Environmental Impact Report January 2023 In addition, individual development project proposals are assessed by the City Community Development and Transportation Department, in coordination with a qualified paleontologist, prior to the issuance of grading or demolition permits, for the potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. The Department also requires development proposals entailing significant earthworks or deep foundations with the potential to penetrate sedimentary rock layers to incorporate a study by a professional paleontologist to assess the potential for damage of paleontological resources, with the paleontologist providing detailed provisions for the protection of these resources to the City Community Development and Transportation Department. The continued implementation of the City’s established processes under the Cultural Resources Management Plan regarding potential paleontological resources or unique geologic resources would ensure that potential impacts related to paleontological resources of future development facilitated by Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-17 to 4.7-18) 4.8. Greenhouse Gases Impact GHG-1: The proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Project implementation would result in construction and operational activities that would generate GHG emissions, however, as indicated in Draft EIR Table 4.8-4 (Draft EIR p. 4.8-18), the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project growth projection would result in GHG emissions that would not exceed the BAAQMD plan-level significance threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions generated by the growth facilitated by the Project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-16 to 4.8-19) Impact GHG-2: The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is CARB’s primary document used to ensure State GHG reduction goals are met. Nearly all of the specific measures identified in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan would be implemented at the state level, with CARB and/or another state or regional agency having the primary responsibility for achieving required GHG reductions. Therefore, the Project would have limited ability to directly conflict with any of the specific measures identified in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Nonetheless, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recommends a statewide efficiency metric of six metric tons per capita by 2030 and two metric tons per capita by 2050, based on the statewide GHG emissions inventory that includes all emissions sectors in the State. As indicated in Draft EIR Table 4.8-4 (Draft EIR p. 4.8- 18), implementation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in a GHG emission efficiency of 3.9 MTCO2e per capita, and therefore growth facilitated by the proposed Project would result in emissions that meet the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan adjusted statewide 2040 metric of four MTCO2e per capita employed for this EIR. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-19 to 4.8-20) 4.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZMAT-1: The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.