Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />31 <br />4 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <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 />restaurant building on 301 N. Tustin Avenue. <br />79. Respondents' revised project definition set forth in the NOE is a blatant attempt to <br />circumvent CEQA by piecemealing the project, and by avoiding subsequent environmental review <br />by CEQA when a project undergoes significant modifications after initial NIND approval. <br />unlawful and prejudicial efforts are evident from the record. For instance, Respondents <br />erroneously assume that the project is located on properties zoned C2, and with a General Plan <br />designation of General Commercial, when these applications and approvals were major <br />components of the Original Project. In fact, development of the proposed car wash on 301 N. <br />Tustin Avenue could not occur without those approvals. <br />80. Per the NOE, Respondents improperly abandoned the MND and the MMRP adopted <br />for the Original Project only months before, and claim as of September 10, 2019, that the revised <br />project is categorially exempt from CEQA review as an in -fill development project. Accordingly, <br />Respondents are permitting Real Parties to proceed with development of the revised project <br />without complying with any of the mitigation measures identified in the MND and MMRP for <br />cultural and tribal and cultural resources, as well as hazards. <br />81. Because the Revised Project for purposes of CEQA must include all of the <br />component parts, including the general plan amendment and zone change already completed, the <br />Revised Project cannot qualify for the infill categorical exemption. As discussed above, the in -till <br />development exemption is subject to five limitations including that the project must be consistent <br />with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as <br />with any applicable zoning designation and regulation (14 Cal Code Regs §15332(a)). As a matter <br />of law, a project that includes a general plan amendment or a zone change —as was the case <br />here —is not eligible for the exemption. <br />82. Respondents actions constitute piecemeal project approval prohibited under CEQA, <br />and negate Respondents' determination that the project is categorically exempt as an in -fill <br />development project because Respondents cannot carve out the General Plan Amendment and <br />Zoning Amendment from the project in order to rely on the result of those approvals to satisfy the <br />requirements for the in -fill exemption. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment are <br />PETITION FOR WRIT OF <br />