75C - PH - THE BOWERY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response to Mitchell M. Tsai Comment Letter dated May 11, 2020 Comment 1: The comment provides an introductory statement and notes the comments on the Final EIR are submitted on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters that is a labor union representing 50,000 carpenters. The comment also provides generalized information about the provision of comments under CEQA, and requests future notices about the Project. In addition, the comment states that the city must consider proposing that the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and paying prevailing wages to benefit the City. Response 1: The comment is general in nature. This comment from an attorney for the Southwest Carpenters Union provides an introduction to comments and includes background information on the Southwest Carpenters and CEQA and associated regulations. The comment requests additional community benefits but does not provide any substantive comments or questions about the content of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. However, the City acknowledges that the commenter will receive future CEQA notices regarding the project. Comment 2: The comment states that the letter includes comments related to air quality and greenhouse gas from Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. concerning the Draft EIR. The comment asserts they are technical experts, and their Curriculum Vitae (CV) is attached to the letter. Response 2: The comment provides background information related to the commenters, is general in nature, and does not provide any substantive comments or questions about the content of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. Comment 3: The comment provides a summary of CEQA requirements through references to case law and statutes. The comment states that CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures, and that the EIR's function is to provide a full understanding of the environmental consequences of projects. Response 3: The comment is general in nature and does not identify any specific alleged deficiency with the analysis in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. Comment 4: The comment asserts that the EIR does not maintain a stable and consistent project description because the Final EIR identifies modifications to the Project that include changes to the commercial space, landscaping, and the ratio of required parking spaces that the Project would provide per residential unit. Response 4: Since publication of the Notice of Preparation, the Project description has remained stable and proposes to redevelop the Project site with up to 80,000 square feet of retail and restaurant commercial space and 1,150 multi -family residential units. As detailed in the Final EIR, minor details to the Project site plan have been revised in response to the City's detailed review of the proposal, applicant revisions in response to the City's review, and comments received on the Draft EIR. These revisions include: 1) clarification of the types of retail and restaurants that would be within the 80,000 square feet of proposed commercial space; 2) an increase in residential parking from 1.7 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit to be consistent with similar developments within the City; and 3)(in response to SCAQMD comments) requiring the Project to provide information to commercial tenants about the availability of electric landscaping equipment through SCAQMD's Commercial Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment Incentive and Exchange Program. The CEQA process provides for revisions to environmental analysis in response to response to comments and/or any other information added by the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(e)). 75C-191