Laserfiche WebLink
Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act <br />Focused General Plan Update 48 <br />Final Environmental Impact Report January 2023 <br />consumption because potential residential development is less. The No Project Alternative would <br />result in reduced less-than-significant impacts compared to the Project due to the decreased <br />development potential. <br />With regard to geology and soils, the No Project Alternative would result in geology and <br />soils impacts similar to those of the Project because both would be exposed to the same existing <br />geologic conditions within the City. Existing building requirements would still be applicable under <br />the No Project Alternative, and future projects would still be required to be designed and <br />constructed in compliance with all applicable City and State codes and requirements. However, <br />new policies associated with the Public Safety Element’s update would not be in place and not <br />available to mitigate climate change/resiliency possible impacts. As such, the No Project <br />Alternative’s impacts would possibly be significant and require mitigation. <br />With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, the Project would result in a less-than-significant <br />greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact, and the less-than-significant impact of the No Project <br />Alternative would be reduced further due to the decrease in development potential. <br />With regard to hazards and hazardous materials, the No Project Alternative would reduce <br />the less-than-significant impact because the No Project Alternative provides for fewer housing <br />units, thereby decreasing the number of residents possibly exposed to hazardous materials <br />transport, use, or disposal. The No Project Alternative would not increase possible hazard emissions <br />nor the handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. The No Project <br />Alternative would subject fewer potential residents to airport safety hazards and related noise than <br />the Project because the residential development potential is lower. The No Project Alternative <br />would result in reduced less-than-significant impacts compared to the Project due to the reduced <br />development potential. <br />With regard to hydrology and water quality, though the No Project Alternative assumes a <br />population increase that would be less than the Project, the No Project Alternative would be subject <br />to all existing water quality regulations and programs and would result in reduced less-than- <br />significant impacts compared to the Project due to the reduced development potential. <br />With regard to land use and planning, the No Project Alternative would not physically <br />divide an established community, similar to the Project. The potential development is consistent <br />with the Plan Bay Area 2050 because the Plan’s growth projection uses RHNA allocation as its <br />base, and the No Project Alternative meets the growth projection. The No Project Alternative would <br />have similar less-than-significant impacts compared to the Project. <br />With regard to mineral resources, the Planning Area is designated as having little potential <br />for development of mineral resources. The No Project Alternative would have a similar, no impact <br />on mineral resources when compared with the Project. <br />With regard to noise, mitigation measures would still be required for development to ensure <br />that train ground vibration and vibration noise is mitigated for residential projects within 200’ and <br />commercial projects within 120’ of the rail track. However, due to the reduction in development <br />potential of the No Project Alternative, the number of units possibly impacted by train ground