Laserfiche WebLink
Finally, the Court found that, because of the above deficiencies in the EIR's <br />traffic analysis, the estimate of the traffic generated by the Project was inaccurate, and as <br />a result the mitigation measures proposed for the Project, particularly those requiring the <br />payment of "fair share fees," were insufficient. <br />• "The description of the traffic levels of service in the EIR, are inaccurate, <br />and the sufficiency of the mitigation measures as to traffic inadequate, for <br />these same reasons." (Ruling, p. 18, lines 1-3) <br />As a result of these deficiencies, Judge Alvarez ordered Respondents "to suspend <br />all Project activities related to traffic impacts until appropriate corrective measures are <br />taken consistent with this decision." (Ruling, p. 18, lines 23-24) (emphasis added) This <br />Addendum documents the corrective measures to provide the Court and the City with the <br />details and clarifications regarding the Project's traffic impacts. <br />V. Scope of Addendum <br />The Court's Ruling, Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate and the <br />Peremptory Writ of Mandate all conclude that the entire EIR is sufficient except for the <br />four areas discussed above. Thus, the scope of this Addendum is limited to clarifying <br />those areas for the Court: <br />(i) Clarification of Project square footage designated as High Cube <br />warehouse distribution use; <br />(ii) Explanation of the methodology used to calculate traffic growth in the <br />vicinity of the Project and the incorporation of Project traffic into the traffic growth <br />projections; <br />(iii) Update and clarification of the baseline concerning the traffic signal <br />synchronization and related level of service description; and <br />(iv) Clarification of the sufficiency of the traffic mitigation measures in light <br />of the Addendum's additional analysis of traffic related impacts. <br />Any public comment on this Addendum shall be limited to these four areas. <br />VI. Revised Traffic Analysis Pursuant to Court Ruling <br />1. Square Footage Allocated for High -Cube Warehouse <br />The Court found the EIR to be deficient in part because it found a discrepancy in <br />the Project's square footage allocation for High -Cube Warehouse and the absence of a <br />discussion of the basis for the square footage to be allocated to that use. <br />A. 1,086,782 Square Feet are Designated High -Cube Warehouse <br />The Court cited the discrepancy between the 1,081,782 square feet of High -Cube <br />Warehouse identified in the traffic impact analysis performed by the traffic consultant, <br />4 <br />wc-141612 <br />