Laserfiche WebLink
III. Project Background <br />The Property contains approximately 94.18 acres of real property, and is located <br />north of the Santa Ana River at the southeast intersection of Riverside Avenue and Agua <br />Mansa Road. The Property is also located within the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor <br />Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") area. The Specific Plan is a multi jurisdictional land use <br />and economic development plan encompassing approximately 4,285 acres within <br />portions of the City, Rialto and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino and Riverside <br />Counties. <br />IV. Summary of Judge Alvarez's Ruling <br />On May 21, 2009, Judge Alvarez issued a written ruling on the Petition for Writ <br />of Mandate ( "Ruling"). In the Ruling, Judge Alvarez found that all of Rialto's <br />arguments failed except for four areas requiring clarification related to traffic. The four <br />areas for clarification are as follows. <br />First, the Court stated that the administrative record did not support the EIR's <br />designation of 1,081,782 square feet of High Cube warehouse distribution use. <br />"The traffic analysis is deficient since substantial evidence does not <br />support the assumption in the traffic analysis that 1,081,782 square feet of <br />the project is to be used as a High Cube Warehouse (A.R., pp. 1916-1918) <br />when only `895,520 square feet consist of High -Cube warehouse <br />distribution center uses' (A.R., p. 2689), the rest being office, <br />manufacturing, landscaping and parking." (Ruling, p. 17, lines 17-22) <br />Second, the Court found that the EIR was deficient in its explanation of the <br />methodology used to calculate traffic growth in the vicinity of the Project. <br />• "The traffic analysis is also deficient since there is no evidence in the <br />administrative record explaining how traffic from the Project was <br />incorporated into the traffic growth projections." (Ruling, p. 17, lines 23- <br />25) <br />Third, the Court found that certain assumptions related to completion by another <br />agency of traffic signal synchronization were uncertain and therefore could not be relied <br />upon in determining the baseline for the Project. The Court found that, because the <br />traffic signal synchronization could not be counted upon to establish the baseline traffic <br />conditions, the EIR's description of the level of service at the affected intersections was <br />inaccurate. <br />"The traffic analysis was further deficient for relying on completion of the <br />Valley Signal Synchronization Program when funding and scheduling for <br />Tier 4 has not been completed (A.R., p. 2688a)." (Ruling, p. 17, lines 26- <br />28) <br />wc-141612 3 <br />