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
5 <br />61 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />Avenue Retail Project site and total approximately 4.24 acres." (Initial Study, p. 4.) <br />71. Respondents expressly describe the Original Project to include "the demolition of <br />the existing gas station, gas canopy, and carwash at 325 N. Tustin Avenue and demolition of the <br />existing restaurant building at 301 N. Tustin Avenue." (Initial Study, p. 10.) <br />72. Respondents September 24, 2018 staff report to the Planning Commission <br />concerning the Original Project recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment sought by <br />Parties in Interest because it would "create an approximately 4-acre General Commercial <br />area at the northeast and southeast corners of Tustin Avenue and Fourth Street," and the zone <br />change because it would "create a continuous block of commercial uses that will stimulate the <br />economy in the area." (Staff Report, September 24, 2018.) <br />73. The "Determination" reported by Respondents in the Initial Study was that the <br />Original Project would have a less than significant effect on the following environmental areas <br />mitigation measures incorporated: cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and <br />14 11 tribal cultural resources. It follows then that without these mitigation measures, the Original <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />will have a significant effect on these environmental areas. The specific mitigation <br />measures adopted for the Original Project are discussed supra in this Petition. <br />74. Thereafter, Respondents prepared the MND for the Original Project,' as well as the <br />MMRP (SCH # 2018081033). Respondents (City Council) adopted Resolution No. 2018-081 <br />adopting the MND and MMRP on November 20, 2018. The Resolution states that the MND <br />"concluded that the [Original] [P]roject would have a less than significant environmental impact <br />with implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are included to address cultural <br />resources, hazards, and tribal and cultural resources." The Resolution further states that the "City <br />Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this <br />matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) <br />' To date, Petitioner have been unable to review the MND because Respondents have failed to produce the <br />MND in response to a Public Records Act Request submitted by Petitioners on September 12, 2019, as well <br />as several other informal requests. The MND is not available on the City's website, nor is it available on <br />the State Clearinghouse Website. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.