11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Updated Air Quality Technical Memorandum) is not required. Consequently, the Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to Phase 1 operational ROG emissions. (See Revised HRA Table 7 in Response to Comments Appendix B; Response to Comments 1-9.) • The Project would have less than significant GHG impacts. The Project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, Plan Bay Area 2040, and the City's Climate Action Plan. Because the Project is consistent with these applicable plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, and because the Project implements certain Project design features (e.g. electric vehicle charging stations and rooftop solar photovoltaic panels),the Project would generate an incremental contribution to climate change compared to existing conditions, but would not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to significantly influence global climate change. Therefore,the Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to GHG emissions. (See Updated Greenhouse Gas Analysis pages 32-46; Response to Comments pages 3-33 through 3-40.) • The Project would have less than significant energy-related impacts. As stated in the 2019 recirculated Health Risk Assessment, Phase 1 would not require haul trucks to export rubble resulting from the demolition of existing buildings at the site, as no demolition would be required or take place; all existing rubble would be reused on-site. In addition, the majority of demolition debris created during Phase 2 demolition activities of existing buildings would be reused on-site, and Phase 2 would require fewer haul trucks to export this debris, compared to conditions of all demolition debris were to be removed from the site. By using much of this material on-site as construction base, the Project would eliminate both disposal trips for the demolition debris and haul trips for new aggregated fill material,thus eliminating the diesel fuel consumption associated with each truck trip. The Project would comply with applicable construction regulations that affect energy demand, such as idling restrictions that would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption and minimize the Project's construction- related energy use. As a result, construction energy impacts would be considered less than significant. And because the Project would be consistent with energy efficient building standards and promote transportation energy efficiency, it would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy or preclude opportunities for improving overall fuel efficiency and future energy conservation. The Project also would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As a result, operational energy impacts would be considered less than significant. (See Response to Comments 2-1, 2-2; Energy Resources Technical Memorandum section 3.2.) V. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 9