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 />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION <br />[Violation of CEQA Against All Respondents] <br />107. Petitioners reallege and incorporate each of the prior allegations as set forth in full. <br />108. A court shall issue a writ of mandate ordering a public agency to perform a <br />mandatory duty under CEQA if the court finds the agency committed a prejudicial abuse of <br />discretion. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5; Code Civ. Proc. § 1085(a).) In the context of CEQA, an <br />abuse of discretion "means the agency failed to proceed as required by law or there was no <br />substantial evidence to support its decision." (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.) <br />109. Respondents have abused their discretion and failed to act in a manner required by <br />CEQA because they: <br />a. Failed to adequately address, analyze, or otherwise consider the adverse <br />environmental impacts, necessary or foreseeable mitigation measures, or a <br />reasonable range of alternatives to the Revised Project, in an environmental <br />document as required by CEQA. <br />b. Failed to provide adequate notice to Petitioners and the public to allow them to <br />meaningfully prepare and participate in the hearing on the Revised Project as <br />required by the right to due process under the US Constitution and the California <br />Constitution; <br />c. Engaged in prohibited piecemeal environmental review by ignoring the Original <br />Project and abandoning the adopted MND and MMRP; <br />d. Failed to conduct subsequent environmental review after substantial changes were <br />made to the Original Project; <br />e. Found the Revised Project categorically exempt as an in -fill development without <br />meeting the statutory requirements, including consistency with the General Plan <br />and zoning, and no significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality and <br />water quality. <br />f. Found the Revised Project categorically exempt even though (a) the Revised <br />Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual <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.