2010 RES R-03-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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