AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 17 This policy does not contain specific goals or guidelines for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but considers cumulative air quality impacts overall. Since the project would conform to the applicable land use General Plan policies and established consistency with past practice and existing development form, the project would not conflict with this policy. Current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CECA Guidelines recommend that the evaluation of a project's cumulative impacts should be based on an analysis of the consistency of the project with the applicable general plan, and the applicable general plan's consistency with the regional air quality plan. The City's new 2030 General Plan, currently undergoing environmental review, will be consistent with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. The new 2030 General Plan will have a threshold of significance for assessing air quality impacts. Furthermore, Section 15183 of the CECA Guidelines specifies that projects consistent with the land use and development densities of a City's general plan which an environmental clearance was obtained do not require additional CEQA review unless there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment meets these criteria because the increase is well within the permitted density for the R-2 district in the current General Plan, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project because the residential/and uses proposed with the code amendment are already allowed per the existing zoning provisions. The code amendment would permit a slight increase in density in the R-2 district (less than one-half of one percent), which increase would be consistent with the City's existing practice for implementing the R-2 zoning provisions, and any new development permitted by the project would be sUbject to compliance with CEQA requirements. Therefore, any ensuing residential development that would occur with this amendment would not conflict with City or region~wide goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of AS 32. Although the project itself would not result in any new development or construction, the slight increase in residential construction that could ensue pursuant to the proposed R-2 amendment could generate dust, exhaust, and similar particulates and emissions. As noted above, any such construction would be preceded by the issuance of a PD Permit and accompanied by the requisite CECA compliance. In addition, as a condition of any PO PermitJ the City would require the incorporation of standard dust control and emission controls by the BAAQMD to ensure that any temporary air-quality impacts related to additional residential construction will remain at a less-than-significant level. Initial Study, R-2 Zoning District Code Amendment 111