Item 26 - Public Hearing Regarding Bristol Project

Home Browse Search

Response to Comment L23: Jennifer Richardson, dated August 12, 2024 Comment L23.1: This comment states that the commenter is against the proposed Project due to the Projects size and scope, length of time to complete, and environmental impacts. Response to Comment L23.1: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or the need to recirculate the Draft Supplemental EIR. A general response to a general comment is sufficient. (Browning -Ferris Indus. v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862.) The Draft Supplemental EIR provides an accurate and thorough analysis of all of the Project's potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. As discussed throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR, mitigation measures would be required for impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources as these impact areas are potentially significant after the imposition of existing regulations and standards conditions. Comment L23.2: This comment urges the City to reject the Project due to the significant and unavoidable impacts, especially those regarding air quality impacts. Response to Comment L23.2: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or the need to recirculate the Draft Supplemental EIR. Ultimately, it is up to the City to determine what the Project benefits are and if they would outweigh any potential significant and unavoidable impacts. In accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093, in order to approve the Project, the City is required to determine that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project. If the City approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the City shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If the City decides to approve the project and makes a SOC, the statement will be included in the record of the project approval and will be mentioned in the notice of determination. Per Public Resources Code § 21002.1 (a), the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." Therefore, the Draft Supplemental EIR is not intended to serve as the justification for adopting a SOC or as basis for the approval or denial of the Project, but to disclose the environmental consequences of approving the Project and a SOC. Through the public hearing process, the decision -makers within the City will take into consideration the environmental impacts caused by the Project in if it decides to approve the Project, a SOC will be required. The SOC is included as Exhibit 1 to the Staff Report.