Reso PC22-08 0085 PC Reso Recommending CEQA

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Harbor View Project PAGE 10 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 GHG-3: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Findings Regarding Impact GHG-3: The Revised Project would be subject to all regulations and General Plan policies, and more stringent fuel efficiency regulations and Title 24 standards reflected in the Green Building Ordinance, all reducing the energy demand of the Revised Project. Therefore, the energy demand from the operation of the Revised Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy. Moreover, the energy use would be reduced with the Revised Project, which involves less development than evaluated in the DEIR. This impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-24 to 4.3-25; FEIR, p. 2-12 to 2-14.) Impact GHG-4: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Findings Regarding Impact GHG-4: The Revised Project would comply with the City’s Green Building Ordinance and current Title 24 standards which promote energy efficiency. Also, the Revised Project would involve the efficient use of fuel for light-duty vehicles, in addition to being designed to a LEED silver standard and would comply with fuel and energy efficiency regulations. Therefore, the Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-26; FEIR, p. 2-12 to 2-14.) Impact GHG-1.CU: The Project, combined with cumulative development, would result in cumulative impacts regarding GHG emissions and climate change, but Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Findings Regarding Impact GHG-1.CU: As discussed under Impact GHG-1, GHG emissions from the construction and development of the Project would be less than BAAQMD’s thresholds with adherence to a mitigation measure to implement a TDM plan (FEIR Table 2-3 on FEIR p. 2-12. See Impact GHG-1, below.). Also, given the Revised Project characteristics discussed under Impacts GHG-1 through GHG-4, the Revised Project’s contribution to global cumulative impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-26 to 4.6-27; FEIR, p. 2-12 to 2-14.) Impact GHG-2.CU: The Project, combined with cumulative development citywide, would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans, violate energy standards, or result in wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy, such that a cumulative impact would occur. Findings Regarding Impact GHG-2.CU: As described under Impact GHG-3, the Revised Project would have a less than significant impact relating to the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of electricity or natural and no considerable contribution to cumulative conditions. Further, as analyzed in the DEIR, the Revised Project site is within one mile of the Caltrain station, thereby providing worker flexibility in their chosen modes of travel, which would also be expanded through implementation of a TDM plan with strategies aimed at reducing employee trips and encouraging the use of alternative transportation options. Thus, the Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-26; FEIR, p. 2-12 to 2-14.)