My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A (COMMENT)
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
10/15/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A (COMMENT)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2019 12:29:49 PM
Creation date
10/14/2019 12:51:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
75A
Date
10/15/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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
2 <br />3 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />I. Respondents' Planning Commission Approves the Revised Project and <br />Finds it Exempt From CEQA <br />60. At the September 9, 2019 hearing, the City's Planning Commission approved the <br />Project by granting two conditional use permits, amending a variance issued for the <br />Original Project, and adopting Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2019-69, finding <br />the Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review pursuant to Section <br />15332 for certain infill developments. <br />J. The City Posts and Files a Notice of Exemption for the Revised Project <br />61. On September 10, 2019, Respondents both filed and posted the NOE for the <br />Project, which stated the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant <br />to Section 15332. The NOE states the following under "Reason(s) Why Project Is Exempt From <br />CEQA:" "The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation. The site is 1.46 <br />acres and surrounded by urban uses. The site was previously developed and has no habitat for <br />endangered, rare or threatened species. The project will not result in any significant impacts <br />related to traffic, noise, air quality or or [sic] water quality." Respondents did not make a single <br />to the potential for cultural resources or tribal cultural resources on 325 and 301 N. <br />17 Tustin Avenue, after August 30, 2019,.when the project proposed with the car wash publicly <br />18 became the Revised Project. Respondents also did not mention the hazardous substances that <br />19 could be released into the air from demolition, including asbestos and lead -paint. <br />20 K. Petitioners File an Appeal to the City Council but the City Refuses to <br />21 Withdraw the NOE Pending the Hearing <br />22 62. On September 19, 2019, Petitioners filed an appeal of the City's Planning <br />23 Commission's approvals of the Revised Project, including the categorical exemption <br />24 determination to the City Council. <br />25 63. California Public Resource Code section 21151 requires the City to provide an <br />26 appeal of the Planning Commission's categorical exemption determination to the City Council. <br />27 The City's CEQA guidelines provide for such an appeal as well. <br />28 /// <br />?n <br />FOR WRIT OF <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.