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
31 <br />51 <br />6 <br />a significant part of the Revised Project, which includes the proposed modifications to develop a <br />car wash on 301 N. Tustin Avenue instead of the retail center, because the car wash could not have <br />been developed on the property without those changes. Commercial development of those <br />properties is the exact reason Real Parties applied for the General Plan Amendment and the <br />Zoning Amendment because the neither the Original Project, nor the Revised could be developed <br />those initial approvals. <br />7 83. The revised project is also inconsistent with the City's General Plan Goals and <br />8 Policies because the car wash development will not promote economic growth, sales tax revenue, <br />9 or jobs, and it is aesthetically unappealing at an identified gateway to the City. <br />10 84. In addition, Respondents were required to determine whether subsequent <br />11 environmental review of the Original Project was required in light of the modifications Real <br />12 Parties requested in 2019 as part of the Revised Project—i.e. the substitution of the car wash for <br />13 the retail building. If Respondents determined that no subsequent environmental review was <br />14 mandated by the modifications, then the MND and MMRP remained in effect and compliance <br />15 with the mitigation measures set forth therein was required. If Respondents determined that <br />16 further environmental review was necessary in light of the Modifications, then CEQA required <br />17 Respondents to adopt a subsequent environmental review document. <br />18 85. Further environmental review was required here because the addition of a massive, <br />19 automated car wash in the Revised Project creates environmental concerns that are distinct from <br />20 those associated with a retail building and were not considered in Respondents' Initial Study in <br />21 connection with the Original Project, or the MND. For example, the retail building in the Original <br />22 Project would produce no significant impacts on noise, vibration or traffic. In contrast, the <br />23 addition of the car wash development on 301 N. Tustin Avenue constitutes a substantial change in <br />24 light of, among other things, the vibrations, noise and traffic impacts the car wash will generate, <br />25 and that the car wash tunnel will be constructed merely inches from a highly sensitive use as a <br />26 dental office on 171 N. Tustin Avenue. <br />27 86. Subsequent environmental review was necessary to analyze whether the Revised <br />28 Project will have a significant impact on vibrations. <br />PETITION FOR WRIT OF <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.