![]() (Citing Coalition for an Equitable Westlake/MacArthur Park v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 499), and that to be timely any CEQA challenge must be filed within 30 days after the filing of a facially valid NOD. In reviewing de novo the issue whether petitioners’ action was time-barred, the Court observed that CEQA requires untimely actions to be dismissed (citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15112(b) Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. On the City’s and developers’ timely and later-consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to the trial court to dismiss the petition as time-barred. After a merits trial, the trial court again rejected the CEQA statute of limitations argument and found that the MND was inadequate and an EIR was required because the project may have significant unmitigated environmental impacts. The trial court sustained City’s and real parties’ joint demurrer to the Planning and Zoning Law and Map Act claims, but overruled it as to the CEQA claim, finding the petition was timely filed within 30 days of the Jfiling of the NOD filed after the City Council’s action. Code, § 66410 et seq) legal theories on July 16, 2021, within 30 days of the filing of the City’s third NOD for the project. Code, § 65000 et seq) and Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Petitioners filed a writ action challenging the project approvals based on CEQA, Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. In the third and final stage of development approvals for the project, on June 8, 2021, the City Council also adopted the previously prepared MND and approved the recommended rezoning, which actions were followed by the filing of a third NOD by the City on June 18, 2021. It followed that action with a Januletter of determination and the City filed a second NOD on February 4, 2021. On March 3, 2020, following an earlier public hearing, the City’s Planning Department, acting as an advisory agency, conditionally approved a vesting tentative tract map, and adopted the MND and a mitigation monitoring program on March 25, 2020, the City filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) pursuant to CEQA.Īt a later hearing, the East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission (Planning Commission), acting in its capacity as a Zoning Administrator and Board of Zoning Adjustment, also adopted the previously prepared MND, approved various zoning determinations and adjustments needed for the project’s retaining walls, and recommended the City Council adopt the necessary zone change. As revised, the project required a number of discretionary approvals in addition to the subdivision map, including a rezoning and retaining wall approvals. The project is a 42-lot single family residential subdivision on a nearly 5-acre hillside parcel in Northeast Los Angeles as CEQA compliance, the City prepared a June 2016 MND and, after various project redesigns, an updated March 2017 MND. ![]() City of Los Angeles (TTLE Los Angeles – El Sereno LLC et al, Real Parties in Interest) (2024) _ Cal.App.5th_. ![]() 5) reversed a trial court judgment overturning a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and requiring an EIR for a 42-single family home project instead, the Court of Appeal held the petitioners’ action should have been dismissed as time-barred and that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrers of respondent City of Los Angeles and the real party developers on statute of limitations grounds. In a published opinion filed on January 17, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |