My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Item #15
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
12/03/2024
>
Correspondence - Item #15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2024 3:06:38 PM
Creation date
12/2/2024 3:22:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
15
Date
12/3/2024
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
220
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 70. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court issue a writ of mandate directing the <br /> 2 City to rescind and set aside its approval of Ordinance No. NS-3061 and an injunction restraining <br /> 3 the City and its agents, servants, and employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, <br /> 4 from taking any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-3061 pending full compliance with the <br /> 5 requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, and all other applicable laws and regulations. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF <br /> 8 (Declaratory Relief—Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. <br /> (Violation of CEQA)) <br /> 9 71. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth <br /> 10 fully herein. <br /> 11 72. A present and actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City concerning <br /> 12 the City's non-compliance with CEQA. And unless declaratory or injunctive relief issues,the City <br /> 13 will continue to violate CEQA. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the City incorrectly <br /> 14 determined that Ordinance No. NS-3061 is not a"project"in determining that Ordinance No. NS- <br /> 15 3061 is not subject to CEQA review. <br /> 16 73. The City, in Ordinance No. NS-3061, disputes this contention and asserts that no <br /> 17 CEQA review of Ordinance No. NS-3061 is necessary due to the fact it is not a qualifying <br /> 18 "projects." <br /> 19 74. Given this clear dispute, Petitioner requires and is entitled to a declaration <br /> 20 establishing that the City has violated CEQA by foregoing environmental review of Ordinance No. <br /> 21 NS-3061 based upon the determination Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a project. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF <br /> 24 (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. <br /> (Common Law Nonconforming Use)) <br /> 25 75. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth <br /> 26 fully herein. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE <br /> 20 AND COMPLATNT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.