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
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; <br />(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or <br />threatened species; <br />(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects <br />relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and <br />(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public <br />services. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.)" <br />99. The Revised Project does not qualify for the in -fill categorical exemption because <br />the project, within the meaning of CEQA, includes the general plan amendment and zone change, <br />were part of the Original Project and are necessary for the development of the Revised <br />12 100. The Revised Project also does not qualify for a categorical exemption because <br />13 Respondents have already determined that the Original Project —including the portions that <br />14 remain in the Revised Project —require an MND and mitigation measures to avoid significant <br />15 impacts on the environment. In addition, CEQA does not permit a project to be modified <br />16 following the adoption of an MND and then for a categorical exemption to be approved so that the <br />17 MND can be disregarded. <br />18 101. The Revised Project also does not qualify for the categorical exemption because the <br />19 Revised Project would result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, vibrations, and air <br />20 quality. <br />21 102. In addition, the Revised Project cannot be approved as categorically exempt because <br />22 it falls into three exceptions. <br />23 103. CEQA section 15300.2 contains a list of exceptions to the exemptions. Relevant <br />24 here: <br />25 a. "all exemptions ... are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive <br />26 projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." (subd. (a).) <br />27 b. "a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a <br />28 reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the <br />31 <br />PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.