(3)AR 121509 Environmental Addendum

Browse Search

Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council Certification of Addendum to Agua Mansa Commerce Center Project EIR December 15, 2009 Page 2 ("NOD") was filed on June 17, 2008, and was received and posted by the Clerk of the Board of the County of San Bernardino on June 18, 2008. On July 18, 2008, Rialto filed its Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Trial was held before Judge Alvarez on April 24, 2009. On May 21, 2009, Judge Alvarez ruled on the Petition for Writ of Mandate. On September 1, 2009, Judge Alvarez entered the City's Proposed Judgment and Proposed Peremptory Writ of Mandate, consistent with the ruling, as the Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate and the Peremptory Writ of Mandate. The Court's Ruling, Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate and the Peremptory Writ of Mandate all conclude that the entire EIR is sufficient except for the four (4) areas noted below: First, the Court stated that the administrative record did not support the EIR's designation of 1,081,782 square feet of High Cube warehouse distribution use. Second, the Court found that the EIR was deficient in its explanation of the methodology used to calculate the traffic growth in the vicinity of the Project. Third, the Court found that certain assumptions related to completion by another agency of traffic signal synchronization were uncertain and therefore could not be relied upon in determining the baseline for the Project. The Court found that, because the traffic signal synchronization could not be counted upon to establish the baseline traffic conditions, the EIR's description of the level of service at the affected intersections was inaccurate. Finally, the Court found that, because of the above deficiencies in the EIR's traffic analysis, the estimate of the traffic generated by the Project was inaccurate, and as a result the mitigation measures proposed for the Project, particularly those requiring the payment of "fair share fees," were insufficient. ISSUES/ANALYSIS CEQA authorizes a lead or responsible agency to prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR) or CEQA Guidelines § 15163 (requiring the preparation of a supplement to an EIR) have occurred. The City finds that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR are present and only minor changes to the previous EIR are necessary, thus an Addendum to the EIR is proper (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). The Notice of Availability of the Addendum was made available on October 26, 2009 with a deadline to submit comments by December 10, 2009. The Addendum responds to Judge Alvarez's concerns regarding traffic issues raised in the Ruling and provides clarification and details necessary to address the deficiencies in the EIR identified by Judge Alvarez. Court's Ruling: First, the Court stated that the administrative record did not support the EIR's designation of 1,081,782 square feet of High Cube warehouse distribution use. Addendum (a) The Court cited the discrepancy between the 1,081,782 square feet of High -Cube Warehouse identified in the traffic impact analysis performed by the traffic consultant, Kunzman Associates,