Item 26 - Public Hearing Regarding Bristol Project

Home Browse Search

Response to Comment L21: Larry Rein, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L21.1: This comment states that the Project will have a major impact on the character and nature of the neighborhood and the commenter believes that additional public input is needed. The comment states that the commenter has only attended the first Sunshine Meeting and has not attended any others are they were unaware of them. The comment states that the commenter has just scanned the environmental documents. Response L21.1: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or provide any comments on the Draft or Final SEIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project's potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 151 31(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project's potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project's economic or social effects, such as economic effects related to the character and nature of the community. This comment will be forwarded to City decision -makers as part of the staff report for the Project. Comment L21.2: This comment states that the notice was sent to those who live within 1,000 feet of the Project, which is not adequate. The comment states that the hearing should be pushed back two weeks. Response L21.2: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or provide any comments on the Draft or Final SEIR. The commenter erroneously states the notice of public hearing was provided to a 1,000-foot radius. The notice of public hearing was sent to a 2,000-foot radius and included both owners and occupants. As such, adequate notice was provided to surrounding residents pursuant to the City Municipal Code and a continuation of the public hearing is not warranted. Comment L21.3: This comment states that the Project would result in a large amount of residents and asks how the density compares to developments around Anaheim Stadium. The comment asks if future population growth will support the development given the outmigration from California. Response L21.3: The comment does not raise any specific environmental concern with the analysis within the Draft Supplemental EIR or requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. As detailed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, specifically in Sections 3.0 Project Description, and 5.8 Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project is within the General Plan allowable density for the site. 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 maximum height of 25 stories, 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, which was evaluated previously by the City in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, additional demands from buildout of the site have also been cumulatively evaluated as part of buildout of the City. In regard to future population growth, CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project's potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 151 31(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the Project's potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of the Project's economic or social effects, such as outmigration from California and future population trends. This comment will be forwarded to City decision -makers as part of the staff report for the Project. Comment L21.4: This comment provides concerns regarding overflow parking and states that improvements are needed to the local freeway exits if rush hour traffic is added and requests the City talk to Caltrans and OCTA about this. The comment requests that sidewalks are built and that the commenter 51