Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />RESOLUTION NO. R-03-10 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLTON, <br />CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE <br />AGUA MANSA COMMERCE CENTER FINAL <br />ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE <br />CLEARING HOUSE NO. 2007-071010) <br />WHEREAS, the City of Colton, California (the "City") on June 17, 2008 approved <br />the proposed development of an industrial business park, known as the Agua Mansa <br />Commerce Center ("Project"). The Project is located on approximately 94.18 acres west of <br />the Santa Ana River at the southeast intersection of Riverside Avenue and Agua Mansa Road <br />("Property"). The Project contains approximately 1,365,450 square feet of industrial <br />development; and <br />WHEREAS, On July 18, 2008, the City of Rialto filed its Petition for Writ of <br />Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief entitled, City of Rialto v. City of <br />Colton, Case No.: CIVSS 809613. Trial was held before Judge Alvarez on April 24, 2009. <br />On May 21, 2009, Judge Alvarez ruled on the Petition for Writ of Mandate; and <br />WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, the Court entered a judgment, consistent with the <br />ruling, stating that the Final EIR, as well as the City's Findings and Statement of Overriding <br />Considerations regarding the Project, fully comply with the California Environmental Quality <br />Act, (California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), except for their <br />analysis in the following four areas: <br />l. The administrative record did not support the EIR's designation of 1,081,782 <br />square feet of High Cube warehouse distribution use. <br />2. The EIR was deficient in its explanation of the methodology used to calculate <br />the traffic growth in the vicinity of the Proj ect. <br />3. The Court found that certain assumptions related to completion by another <br />agency of traffic signal synchronization were uncertain and therefore could not <br />be relied upon in determining the baseline for the Project. The Court found <br />that, because the traffic signal synchronization could not be counted upon to <br />establish the baseline traffic conditions, the EIR's description of the level of <br />service at the affected intersections was inaccurate. <br />1 <br />