STA RESPONSE On December 5, 2008 the City of Los Angeles Planning Department rejected Home Depot’s request to be exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the City’s review of its application for a new store at 8040 Foothill Boulevard. Home Depot responded that the City is wrong and that there will be far-reaching unfavorable effects of that decision. We strongly disagree with both of these conclusions. Back in 2005, Home Depot indicated they would apply for the standard and usual Project Permit Compliance Review with our community’s Specific Plan. When they found that the community was opposed to an unattractive big-box warehouse on this key central location, Home Depot dropped that effort. They then labeled the project as "tenant improvements” that require only a building permit in an effort to avoid scrutiny of the actual impacts of the proposed project. The community continued to oppose this devious backdoor approach and the Los Angeles City Council agreed with us, voting overwhelmingly to uphold the normal process. City Council members wanted our community to have the benefit of a full CEQA-compliant environmental review, including mitigation of all impacts of any new store. Home Depot then sued the City. The lawsuit was placed on hold earlier this year after an agreement was made between the City Attorney and Home Depot. Part of this agreement stipulated that Home Depot would apply for Project Permit Compliance Review. The agreement also gave Home Depot and the City the option of resuming the lawsuit at any point in the process. In the course of this process, Home Depot ignored the Council and continued to try to avoid any responsibility for mitigating the impacts of a large, regional discount building materials outlet - they asked for special treatment in the form of Categorical Exemptions from CEQA. This approach led to Home Depot’s present plight which is not the fault of the City or anyone else, but solely belongs to Home Depot alone. The City was correct and treated Home Depot fairly.   CEQA exemptions were created for very minor construction activities and the courts have ruled that these exemptions are to be narrowly applied only to situations where there is clearly no impact. Categorical exemptions can only be granted when there is no potential significant impact on the environment. This is clearly not the case with this project on this site. Five million dollars worth of construction to a 34-year-old building is not minor.  A 100,000 square foot regional discount outlet for building materials on a vacant site is not an insignificant project.   This eleven acres is the largest commercial site in our community, and is not similar to the hundreds of smaller retail sites and stores strung along the Boulevard. The project is within 500 feet of an elementary school and is adjacent to a Senior Mobile Home Park. These are what is known as “sensitive” existing uses and require more consideration of impacts.   Understandable, a permit applicant's views of impacts from its own project are frequently skewed in their favor. We had experienced professional land use, economic and environmental experts review the five technical studies that Home Depot presented. They found many potential adverse significant impacts, from economic impacts on local stores and increased urban decay to on-site and off-site traffic impacts and air pollution. The City’s decision on the inappropriateness of a CEQA exemption for this situation is well supported by the facts in the record. Home Depot implies that the City’s decision has a far-reaching harmful effect of slowing the development review process. On the contrary, the City’s prudent decision will protect neighborhoods and mitigate the impacts of big box discount chain retailers. The fact that Mervyns or Circuit City have closed does not justify a carte blanche for Home Depot. Economic downturns are cyclical, but the unmitigated impacts of this Home Depot on our community would be permanent. The City did not deny Home Depot’s Project Permit Compliance Review application; it merely indicated that the rules would apply in evaluating the store’s impacts. However, Home Depot has now returned to court and is demanding approval of the prior tenant improvement project. At the same time they stated that this  “does not preclude” continuing with the Project Permit Compliance Review application more recently filed for the Project. This contradictory approach muddies the water regarding which “project” Home Depot really wants. The City should place the present Project Permit Compliance Review application on hold until either the Home Depot litigation is resolved, or Home Depot dismisses its lawsuit and goes ahead with the current Project Permit Compliance Review application, including the required CEQA environmental review.