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
7 <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 />circumstances, (b) the cumulative impact of successive projects over time is <br />significant, and (c) the Revised Project will cause a substantial adverse change in <br />the significance of historical resources, so that the exception provided by Guideline <br />section 15300.2 applied to the Revised Project; <br />g. Failed to provide an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's <br />determination on the Revised Project as required by CEQA and the City of Santa <br />Ana's local CEQA guidelines. <br />110. In addition, Respondents determinations in approving the Revised Project and the <br />categorical exemption were not supported by substantial evidence. <br />111. Further, the lack of sufficient notice to Petitioners and the public deprived <br />Petitioners and the public of the ability to meaningfully prepare for and participate in the public <br />hearing regarding the Revised Project. Petitioners were denied sufficient time to hire experts, <br />conduct necessary tests and studies related to the Revised Project, including a traffic study, noise <br />study and vibration study, and to prepare and submit the public comments and materials submitted <br />for the City Council meeting on October 15, 2019. <br />112. Accordingly, the Court should determine the Revised Project is not categorically <br />exempt from CEQA as an infill development project, and in turn require necessary environmental <br />PRAYER FOR RELIEF <br />WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray forjudgment against all Respondents as follows: <br />For a peremptory writ of mandate directing Respondents to: <br />a. Rescind, vacate, invalidate, set aside, void or otherwise annul the approval of the <br />categorical exemption, the notice of exemption, the conditional use permits, <br />variance amendment, and all other approvals granted for the Revised Project; <br />b. Reinstate the MND and MMRP previously adopted and perform subsequent CEQA <br />review for the substantial revisions to the project contained in the Revised Project, <br />including the preparation of a subsequent EIR or subsequent MND if required; <br />c. To include in the Revised Project the portions of the Original Project that have <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.