Response to Late Comments Item No.15

Home Browse Search

1result in no possibility of significant environmental impacts prior to determining that Ordinance 2 No. NS-3061 Davidon Homes v. Cty. of San Joe, 54 Cal.App.4th 3 106, 119-120 (1997). 4 65. The City failed to satisfy its burden to prove, to a certainty, that Ordinance No. NS- 5 3061 will result in no possibility of significant environmental impacts and is therefore not a 6 . No other exemption applies to the Project. Therefore, the City had a 7 mandatory obligation to complete an initial study, and based on the results of such study, a duty to 8 prepare an environmental impact report, analyze all areas of potential significant environmental 9 impact, analyze a reasonable range of alter 10 to the maximum extent feasible, all as required by law. 11 66. prejudicial because the failure to comply with the law 12 resulted in a critical deprivation of the benefits of the public information and public participation 13 purposes of CEQA. The conclusion that Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a project deprived the 14 City of the information needed to produce reasoned decision-making and public participation. 15 67. A 180- 16 . 17 Specifically, the City filed a notice of exemption for Ordinance No. NS-3061 on April 5, 2024, 18 before the ordinance was finally approve by the City on April 16, 2024. A notice of exemption 19 filed before project approval does not trigger the CEQA limitations period. Coalition for Clean th 20 Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4 408, 423. 21 68. Petitioner has caused a Notice of Commencement of Action to be served on 22 Respondents, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. 23 69. Petitioner will have caused a copy of this pleading to be served on the Attorney 24 General not more than 10 days after the commencement of this proceeding, as required by Public 25 Resources Code Section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 388. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 19