My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Non-Agenda
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2023
>
04/18/2023 Special and Regular
>
Correspondence - Non-Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2023 2:38:45 PM
Creation date
4/12/2023 1:48:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
4/18/2023
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
NOP Comments RE:Related Bristol Specific Plan <br /> April 17,2023 <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br /> Sixth, the Citvshould also consider hotel-specific recycling and traffic demand management <br /> f"TDM") programs to further reduce the environmental impacts associated with a hotel operation. For <br /> example,the City should consider hotel-specific recycling programs that promote recycled paper <br /> and other products like soap.ls Additionally, hotels can include a robust traffic demand <br /> management("TDM") program that includes full transit subsidies, participation in guaranteed ride <br /> programs,employee carpool/vanpool access to preferential parking spaces and/or hotel valet <br /> service,and dedicated shuttle service for hotel patrons towards nearby destinations.16 <br /> Seventh, to the extent the City considers approving a Proiect that will result in significant <br /> unavoidable impacts, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations"finding that the <br /> project's benefits outweigh its environmental harm. (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines§ 15043; Pub. Res. <br /> Code§ 21081(b).17) Pub. Res. Code§ 21081 makes clear that overriding considerations can include: <br /> "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including <br /> considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained <br /> workers, [which] make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in <br /> the environmental impact report."(Id., subd. (a)(3).) <br /> In closing,thank you for this opportunity to provide these NOP comments. Local 11 looks <br /> forward to participating in the CEQA review process and working cooperatively with the City to <br /> ensure the Project is environmentally responsible and provides adequate public benefits. This <br /> office requests all notices concerning any CEQAlland use actions involving the Specific Plan, Project, <br /> and Project Approvals as required under applicable law. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code§§ 21092.2, <br /> 21167(f); Gov. Code§ 65092.)We also ask that the City place this office on the notification list for <br /> the Project and Project Approvals. Please send notice by electronic and regular mail and inform us of <br /> any fees associated with this request. <br /> Thank you for consideration of these comments.We ask that this letter be placed in the <br /> Project's administrative record. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV <br /> i <br /> Jordan R. Sisson <br /> Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11 <br /> 1s See e.g.,https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/travel/clean-the-world-hotel-soap.html; <br /> https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-economics-of-everyday-things-used-hotel-soaps/; <br /> https://cleantheworld.org/;https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/food/restaurants/; <br /> https://cleanriver.com/blog-launch-hotel-recycling-program/;https://calrecycle.ca.gov/epp/greenlodging/. <br /> 16 See e.g.,Santa Monica Municipal Code§9.5.130(B)(2)(b);https://www.octa.net/getting- <br /> around/rideshare/oc-rideshare/employers/guaranteed-ride-home-program/; <br /> https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3098?fileID=21731; <br /> 17 See also Concerned Citizens ofS. Central LA v.Los Angeles Unif.Sch.Dist.(1994) 24 Cal.AppAth 826,847; <br /> Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County(1992) 10 Cal.AppAth 1212, 1222. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.