2010 RES R-03-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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. •"The description of the traffic levels of service in the EIR, are inaccurate, and the sufficiency of the mitigation measures as to traffic inadequate, for these same reasons." (Ruling, p. 18, lines 1-3) As a result of these deficiencies, Judge Alvarez ordered Respondents "to suspend all Project activities related to traf ac impacts until appropriate corrective measures are taken consistent with this decision." (Ruling, p. 18, lines 23-24) (emphasis added) This Addendum documents the corrective measures to provide the Court and the City with the details and clarifications regarding the Project's traffic impacts. V. Scope of Addendum 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 areas discussed above. Thus, the scope of this Addendum is limited to clarifying those areas for the Court: (i) Clarification of Project square footage designated as High Cube warehouse distribution use; (ii) Explanation of the methodology used to calculate traffic growth in the vicinity of the Project and the incorporation of Project traffic into the traffic growth proj ections; (iii) Update and clarification of the baseline concerning the traffic signal synchronization and related level of service description; and (iv) Clarification of the sufficiency of the traffic mitigation measures in light of the Addendum's additional analysis of traffic related impacts. Any public comment on this Addendum shall be limited to these four areas. VI. Revised Traffic Analysis Pursuant to Court Ruling l. Square Footage Allocated for Hi�h-Cube Warehouse The Court found the EIR to be deficient in part because it found a discrepancy in the Project's square footage allocation for High-Cube Warehouse and the absence of a discussion of the basis for the square footage to be allocated to that use. A. 1,086,782 Square Feet are Designated High-Cube Warehouse 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, wc-141612 4