Response to Late Comments Item No.15

Home Browse Search

159.Failure tocarry out the full CEQA procedures so that complete information as to a 2 s impacts is developed and publicly disclosed constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion 3 that requires invalidation of the public agency action, regardless of whether full compliance would 4 have produced a different result. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21005. 5 60. In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal. 5th 1171, 6 1197 (2019), the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding understanding that passing 7 8 9 Id. at 1186. Such study is a critical step in furthering 10 s potential 11 environmental impacts; (2) identifying ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; 12 (3) preventing environmental damage; and (4) disclosing to the public the rationale for approval 13 of a project that may significantly impact the environment. Id. at 1184. 14 61. In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc., the California Supreme Court held 15 16 of causing indirect physical changes in the environment, including changed traffic patterns. Id. at 17 1199. 18 Id. at 1182. Potential changes to 19 traffic and circulation were alone enough to require CEQA review. Id. at 1200-01. The court 20 21 an environmental change requires the City to treat it as a project and proceed to the next steps of 22 Id. at 1200. 23 62. Despite these clear requirements under CEQA, the City 24 seminal environmental protection law and clear direction from the California Supreme Court. It 25 concluded Ordinance No. NS-3061 26 ordinances are not subject to the requirements of \[CEQA\], pursuant to the Guidelines section 27 15060(c)(2) because the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect 28 physical change in the environment and 15060(c)(3) because the activity is not a project as defined VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 17