My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A (COMMENT)
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
10/15/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A (COMMENT)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2019 12:29:49 PM
Creation date
10/14/2019 12:51:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
75A
Date
10/15/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />environment and the quality of life in the surrounding community and economic viability <br />of surrounding businesses. In addition, unless the relief requested herein is granted, the <br />environment will be adversely affected and injured by Respondents' failure to perform any <br />environmental review of the Project under CEQA, and by approving the Project. <br />21. Petitioners actively participated in the City's administrative approval process in an <br />attempt to ensure Respondents complied with CEQA and all other applicable laws prior to the <br />close of the September 9, 2019 public hearing on the Project, and before issuance of the NOE, and <br />thus fully exhausted administrative remedies. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21177, subd. (a).) <br />22. CEQA allows a petitioner who objected to a project to allege in a writ petition all <br />deficiencies asserted by others. (Citizens for Clean Energy v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 <br />Cal.App.4th 173, 191.) Petitioners and other interested individuals and businesses made oral and <br />comments that were submitted to the City before and at the September 9, 2019 Planning <br />Commission hearing at which Respondents approved the Project. <br />IV. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS <br />23. A challenge to a determination that a project is exempt must be filed within 35 days <br />after the notice of exemption was filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(d); 14 Cal Code Regs § <br />15112(c)(5).) <br />24, Petitioners filed an appeal of Respondents NOE and Project approvals on September <br />19, 2019, which will be heard by the City Council on October 15, 2019. Although Petitioners' <br />Appeal is still pending, Respondents filed aNOE concerning the Project on September 10, 2019, <br />and thus triggered the 35-day statute of limitations to challenge a determination that the Project is <br />exempt. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(d).). Accordingly, Petitioners filed the instant Petition to <br />their rights to challenge the NOE and related determinations. <br />25. Thus, Petitioners filed this Petition prior to the expiration of any applicable statute <br />26 of limitations. <br />27 /// <br />28 N <br />PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.