Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Save Atascadero lawsuit against city of Atascadero

Save Atascadero lawsuit against city of Atascadero

|Views: 2,271|Likes:
Published by The Tribune

More info:

Published by: The Tribune on Aug 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 - 1 -
Save Atascadero v. City of Atascadero
With this lawsuit, Petitioner SAVE ATASCADERO (“Petitioner”), an unincorporatedassociation, challenges the actions of Respondent CITY OF ATASCADERO (“City”) made on or aboutJune 26, 2012 certifying an environmental impact report (“EIR”) under the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000
et seq.
, and approving various land useand development permits and entitlements for the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan in theCity of Atascadero (“Project”). The Project applicants, proponents, and/or owners are Real Parties InInterest ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., MONTECITO BANK & TRUST,OMNI DESIGN GROUP, INC., THE ROTTMAN GROUP, and WAL-MART STORES, INC.Petitioner contends the City’s actions violated governing provisions of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resource Code Section 21000
et seq.
and the StatePlanning and Zoning Law, Government Code Section 65000
et seq.
As certified by the City, theProject’s EIR violated the information disclosure requirements of CEQA by failing to adequatelyidentify, evaluate, and/or require mitigation for all direct, indirect, and cumulative environmentalimpacts the Project will foreseeably cause. As a result, there is no substantial evidence in theadministrative record of the City’s actions to support the City’s findings that nearly all the Project’senvironmental impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Instead, substantial evidence in therecord shows the Project will have several significant unmitigated environmental effects that the EIReither failed to identify, failed to evaluate adequately, or failed to mitigate where feasible. Petitionerfurther contends that the City’s approval actions violated the State Planning and Zoning Law,Government Code section 65000
et seq.
, on grounds the City’s actions are plainly inconsistent withgoverning land use goals and policies contained in the Atascadero General Plan and its implementingZoning Ordinance.Petitioner therefore seeks a peremptory writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure sections1094.5, and Public Resources Code section 21168 and/or 21168.5, commanding the City to set aside itscertification of the EIR and approval of the Project. Petitioner further seeks a stay of the effect of theapprovals during the pendency of these proceedings. Finally, Petitioner seeks an award of costs and
 - 2 -
Save Atascadero v. City of Atascadero
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728attorneys fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, together with any other relief the Courtdeems necessary and proper.In support whereof, Petitioner alleges:
PARTIESSave Atascadero
Petitioner SAVE ATASCADERO is a California unincorporated association based inAtascadero, San Luis Obispo County. SAVE ATASCADERO is comprised of organizations andindividuals who share common concerns regarding poorly planned, environmentally unsustainable, andeconomically damaging land use and urban development practices in Atascadero.2.
SAVE ATASCADERO’s individual members include. but are not limited to. TomComar, Gloria Boyd, Madeline Rothman, and Ron Rothman, all of whom are residents, electors,taxpayers, and/or property owners in the City of Atascadero.3.
SAVE ATASCADERO and its members maintain a direct and regular geographic nexuswith the City of Atascadero, and will suffer direct harm as a result of any adverse environmental and/orpublic health impacts caused by the Project. These members have a clear and present right to, andbeneficial interest in, the City’s performance of its duties to comply with CEQA and the State Planningand Zoning Law. As Atascadero citizens, homeowners, taxpayers, workers, and/or electors, thesemembers are within the class of persons to whom the City owes such duties.4.
By this action, SAVE ATASCADERO seeks to protect the interests of its members andto enforce a public duty owed those members by the City. Because the claims asserted and the relief sought in this petition are broad-based and of a public as opposed to a purely private or pecuniarynature, direct participation in this litigation by individual SAVE ATASCADERO members is notnecessary.5.
SAVE ATASCADERO and various of its individual members presented oral and/orwritten comments in opposition to the Project prior to and/or during the public hearings culminating inthe City’s June 26, 2012 approvals.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->