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
7 <br />environment due to unusual circumstances." (subd. (b).) <br />c. "a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a <br />substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." <br />104. A categorical exemption is also not available because there are unusual <br />circumstances that will have a significant effect on the environment in connection with the <br />Revised Project, including but not limited to (a) the proximity of the car wash component of the <br />Project to the building on the adjoining property and the noise and vibrations that will <br />8 impact the sensitive uses on that property, (b) that Respondents previously adopted an MND and <br />9 MMRP requiring mitigation measures to address significant environmental impacts for the project <br />10 and have abandoned the MND and MMRP as part of the approval of the Revised Project, (e) the <br />11 existence of cultural resources and tribal cultural resources on the property, and (d) the additional <br />12 traffic generated by the Revised Project which will increase the collision rate at the intersection of <br />13 411 Street and N. Tustin Avenue, which is already significantly exceeds the expected rate for this <br />14 type of intersection. <br />15 105. In the alternative, a categorical exemption is also not available because of the <br />16 cumulative impacts of the implemented portions of the Original Project, including the amendment <br />17 of the general plan, and zone change and demolition of the restaurant building coupled with the <br />18 additional elements of the Revised Project will have a significant impact on the environment as <br />19 evidenced by the previously adopted MND and MMRP. <br />20 106. Respondents were required to, and failed to, evaluate the environmental impacts of <br />21 the unmodified portions of the Original Project, as well as the environmental impacts of the work <br />22 already completed such as the demolition of the restaurant at 301 North Tustin Avenue, along with <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />environmental impacts of the changes made in the Revised Project. The existence of the MND <br />and MMRP, which required mitigation measures for demolition and during construction of the <br />entire original project, including the parts that have not been changed in the Revised Project, <br />demonstrates that Respondents failed to consider and properly address these cumulative impacts in <br />approving the Revised Project as categorically exempt. <br />32 <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.