Item 26 - Public Hearing Regarding Bristol Project

Home Browse Search

Response to Comment L7: Josh Nelson dated August 12, 2024 Comment 1.7.1: This comment states that the proposed Project is too dense and does not conform with the surrounding land uses. The commenter states that the large increase in population to the Project site would bring traffic issues and that an alternative site west of the freeway would better serve the proposed Project. The comment concludes by stating that a reduced density of 45 dwelling units per acre would be better suited for the Project site. Response to Comment L7.1: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The proposed Project is a Specific Plan that delineates the maximum buildout of the Specific Plan area. Future residential development projects may not include the maximum allowable number of residential units and would be reviewed through the City's development review and permitting process. Further, it should be noted that the existing General Plan District Center High (DC-5) land use designation has an allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), and the proposed development would result in a maximum density of 91 du/ac, which is 34 du/ac below the maximum allowed by DC-5. Regarding the concern about the increased traffic that would result from the Project, the number of vehicle trips that would result from each phase of the Project is provided in Table 5.1 3-3, Proposed Project Trip Generation, of the Draft SEIR. As shown on Figure 3-12, Proposed Circulation Plan, the Related Bristol Specific Plan identifies multiple circulation improvements to connect the proposed redevelopment of the site to the existing circulation system adjacent to the site in a manner that would implement efficient multi - modal circulation to, from, and within the Project site, including pedestrian circulation, bicycle lanes, bus stop improvements within the High Quality Transit Area. The Draft SEIR Section 5.1 3, Transportation, details that Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines "shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses" (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1 ]); and that "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Supplemental EIR focuses on analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) criteria and improvements to the circulation system along the Project's frontage to accommodate buildout of the proposed Project, pursuant to the City's recent General Plan Update. However, the Supplemental EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Nevertheless, a TIA has been prepared for the Project and is publicly available on the Project's website. As discussed in Section 6.0 Alternatives, an Alternative site was considered but rejected as the Project objectives are to redevelop the Project site consistent with the objectives of the City's GPU District Center - High (DC-5) land use designation and South Bristol Street Focus Area that includes new mixed -use development with housing in proximity to transit. In addition, due to the urban and built out nature of the City, development of 3,750 multi -family residential units, 350,000 SF of commercial uses, a 250 room hotel, and 200 senior living/continuum of care units on another 41.1 3-acre underutilized site at a different location would likely require demolition of existing structures, require similar mitigation, and have similar impacts as the proposed Project. It would be infeasible to develop and operate the proposed Project on an alternative site with fewer environmental impacts, while also implementing the City's GPU. 12