Laserfiche WebLink
2 <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 />64. Petitioner requested that the City withdraw the NOE in light of the appeal to the <br />City Council, but the City refused. <br />65. The City's refusal to withdraw the NOE pending the hearing on the appeal <br />necessitated this writ petition in light of the 35-day statute of limitation to challenge an NOE <br />pursuant to Section 21167(d) of the Public Resources Code. <br />L. The City Engages in Prohibited Piecemealing and Fails to Conduct <br />Subsequent Environmental Review <br />66. "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act `to be <br />interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within <br />reasonable scope of the statutory language."' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of <br />University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 [citing Friends of Mammoth v. Board of <br />Supervisors (1975) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259].) <br />67. To that end "`CEQA forbids `piecemeal' review of the significant environmental <br />impacts of a project." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 <br />Cal.AppAth 1344, 1358.) "This standard is consistent with the principle that `environmental <br />considerations do riot become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones —each <br />a minimal potential impact on the environment —which cumulatively may have disastrous <br />consequences."' (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 396.) <br />68. Respondents engaged in unlawful piecemealing of the Project in blatant violation of <br />CEQA by omitting portions of the project for which an MND and MMRP were previously <br />adopted, approving modifications to the Original Project without further environmental review, <br />and then carving out handpicked portions from the Revised Project. Respondents then defined <br />those handpicked selections as the "project" in order to avoid necessary further environmental <br />as well as compliance with the mitigation measures Respondents required for the Original <br />Project via the MND and MMRP. The Petitioners as well as the general public will suffer grave <br />harm if Respondents are permitted to continue morphing the Project, via piecemeal modifications, <br />and ultimately permit development of that Project without necessary mitigation measures, as they <br />have currently attempted and actually begun to do. <br />21 <br />PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />